FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 23, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court IRASEMA SALCIDO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9602 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Irasema Salcido-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings and consider an application for cancellation of removal. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. The immigration judge determined that Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez was not eligible for cancellation of removal because she had not been present in the United * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. States for a “continuous period” of at least ten years before she was served with a notice to appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez’s former counsel filed a notice of appeal, but did not file a brief, and the Board summarily dismissed the appeal. Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez then moved to reopen in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2110 (2018), and her counsel’s ineffective assistance. She argued that the notice of appeal served upon her was deficient under Pereira and did not trigger the stop-time rule, so that she had accrued the required ten years of presence. She further argued that her counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to remand under Pereira. The Board recognized that under Pereira, the notice to appear “would not stop [her] accrual of physical presence because it did not include the time and place of her hearing.” R. at 2. But the Board reasoned that the stop-time rule nevertheless applied because a subsequent notice of the time and place of the hearing cured any defect in the notice to appear. It also rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, in part reasoning that because of the stop-time rule, Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez had not suffered prejudice from her former counsel’s failure to move to remand. After the Board’s decision, this court held that “the stop-time rule is triggered by one complete notice to appear rather than a combination of documents.” Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176, 1178 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 2021 WL 1725170 (U.S. May 3, 2021) (No. 20-356). At the government’s request, we then abated this matter when the Supreme Court agreed to consider the same 2 stop-time issue in another case. The …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals