Rosemeyere Dias-Faria v. Jefferson Sessions, III, No. 16-60337 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-60337 Document: 00514221132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60337 Summary Calendar FILED November 1, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROSEMEYERE DIAS-FARIA, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 511 906 Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rosemeyere Dias-Faria, a native and citizen of Brazil, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her removal proceeding. In support, Dias claims: (1) the administrative record before the BIA was incomplete; (2) the BIA erred by not considering that the motion to reopen was unopposed; (3) it improperly found Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-60337 Document: 00514221132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 No. 16-60337 she was not diligent in waiting 13 years to file the motion; and (4) it misidentified the relief sought. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249–50 (5th Cir. 2004) (relying on Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985)). And, to the extent we would have jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional claims, Dias raises none. As another basis for relief, Dias claims the BIA should have construed her brief as seeking equitable tolling of the period for filing a statutory motion to reopen. But, she did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). DISMISSED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.