Marco A. Miranda Sanchez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

Certiorari granted by Supreme Court, June 30, 2025
Vacated and remanded by Supreme Court, June 30, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1319
MARCO A. MIRANDA SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
------------------------------
TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER,
Amicus Supporting Petitioner.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: November 30, 2023 Decided: December 5, 2023
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jennifer Kwon, Sophia L. Gregg, Rebecca Wolozin, Simon Y.
Sandoval-Moshenberg, Zhue D. Azuaje, LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Giovanni B. Di Maggio, Office of

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Marco A. Miranda Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for deferral of removal under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because we lack jurisdiction over Sanchez’s
petition for review, we dismiss it.
Sanchez illegally entered the United States in 1994. The immigration authorities
removed Sanchez from this country about four years later pursuant to a 1998 order of
removal. Sanchez thereafter reentered the United States, and in November 2019, the
Department of Homeland Security issued Sanchez a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate
Prior Order. In that document, an immigration officer (1) determined that Sanchez was
subject to removal through reinstatement of the 1998 removal order, and (2) noted that
Sanchez refused to sign the document, which has a section asking whether the noncitizen
wishes to contest the reinstatement determination. Sanchez subsequently expressed a fear
of returning to Mexico, and an asylum officer found that fear to be reasonable. Sanchez
was thus referred to the immigration court for withholding-only proceedings.
In those proceedings, Sanchez—through counsel—applied for deferral of removal
under CAT. The IJ denied Sanchez’s application for CAT relief after several hearings.
Sanchez appealed to the Board, and the Board entered a March 21, 2022, order dismissing
the appeal and sustaining the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. On March 24, 2022, Sanchez
petitioned this court for review of the Board’s March 21 order.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Although the parties have agreed that we possess jurisdiction over Sanchez’s
petition for review, “[w]e have an independent obligation to assure ourselves of jurisdiction
to decide an appeal.” Martinez v. Garland, __ F.4th __, __, No. 22-1221, 2023 WL
7800113, at *2 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023). We generally possess jurisdiction to review “a
final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). A noncitizen must petition for review
within 30 days “of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). “The 30-day
deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable tolling.” Martinez,
2023 WL 7800113, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce we have a final order
of removal before us, we can consider along with it ‘all questions of law and fact . . . arising
from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove [the] alien from the United States.’”
Id. at *2 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)) (ellipsis and second alteration in original).
Sanchez seeks review of the Board’s order affirming the denial of his application
for CAT relief. We recently held in Martinez, however, that an order denying CAT relief
is not a final order of removal for purposes of § 1252(a)(1). Id. at *3. So for us to exercise
jurisdiction over the Board’s order affirming the denial of CAT relief, Sanchez “must
identify another eligible order” that is properly before us. Id. at *4. But Sanchez cannot
do so because he did not timely petition for review of a final order of removal. That is,
Sanchez did not petition for review within 30 days of the 1998 removal order or the 2019
reinstatement order. 1 So there is no final order of removal properly in front of us that would
1 Sanchez did not contest the immigration officer’s reinstatement order as he refused
to sign the document, so it became final in November 2019. See Martinez, 2023 WL
7800113, at *4.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
allow us to review the Board’s order affirming the denial of CAT relief. We thus lack
jurisdiction over Sanchez’s petition for review. 2 Id. at *7-8.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
2 In a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, Sanchez maintains that we may exercise
jurisdiction over the Board’s order affirming the denial of CAT relief under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(4) (“[A] petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in
accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of
any cause or claim under [CAT] . . . .”). But that provision means only that we may review
an order denying CAT relief as part of our review of a final order of removal. It does not
permit us to review an order denying CAT relief without a final order of removal properly
before us. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1691 (2020) (citing § 1252(a)(4) and
explaining that order denying CAT relief is reviewable “as part of the review of a final
order of removal” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Martinez, 2023 WL 7800113, at
*3-4 (recognizing that federal appellate court may review order denying CAT relief only
as part of its review of final order of removal); Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180,
190 n.13 (2d Cir. 2022) (explaining that § 1252(a)(4) does not enable federal appellate
court to exercise jurisdiction over order denying CAT relief “in the absence of a judicially
reviewable final order of removal”).

-- 5 of 5 --