Cardoza-Bonilla v. Blanche

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________

No. 25-60640
Summary Calendar
____________

Yasmina Marbella Cardoza-Bonilla; Diana Gabriela
Recarte-Cardoza,

Petitioners,

versus

Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.
______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A208 541 915,
A208 541 916
______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
*

Yasmina Marbella Cardoza-Bonilla, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying her
motion to reopen her proceedings. (Cardoza’s then-minor child, Diana
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 17, 2026

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 25-60640 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

No. 25-60640
2
Gabriela Recarte-Cardoza, was a derivative beneficiary on her application for
relief).
Because motions to reopen are “disfavored”, their denial is reviewed
under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Gonzalez-Cantu
v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The
denial will stand unless it is “capricious, without foundation in the evidence,
or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any
perceptible rational approach”. Id. (citation omitted).
Cardoza contends the BIA erred, under the applicable two-part test,
in declining to equitably toll the filing deadline for her untimely motion to
reopen because: she acted diligently; and extraordinary circumstances
prevented her timely filing. See Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th
Cir. 2020) (noting 90-day filing deadline for motion to reopen unless
equitable tolling applies); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)
(requiring petitioner seeking equitable tolling to show “that he has been
pursuing his rights diligently, and . . . that some extraordinary circumstance
stood in his way”).
Regarding Cardoza’s contending she acted diligently, the BIA did not
abuse its discretion in concluding her failure to show the steps she took to
pursue relief during her four years of inaction constituted a lack of diligence.
See Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d at 545. Because, under the two-part test, her lack
of diligence is fatal to her equitable-tolling claim, we need not consider her
contention, under the second part of the test, that extraordinary
circumstances prevented her from timely filing to reopen. See id;
INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
Case: 25-60640 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

No. 25-60640
3
Finally, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cardoza’s challenge to
the BIA’s declining to exercise its discretion to reopen her proceedings sua
sponte. See Pena-Lopez v. Garland, 33 F.4th 798, 807 (5th Cir. 2022).
DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.
Case: 25-60640 Document: 40-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2026