RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0161p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ EVELIO SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ, │ Petitioner, │ > No. 20-3938 │ v. │ │ MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 072 170 496. Decided and Filed: July 16, 2021 Before: GILMAN, McKEAGUE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Karen Denise Bradley, BRADLEY & ASSOCIATES, Dayton, Ohio, for Petitioner. Margaret A. O’Donnell, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________ OPINION _________________ McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Evelio Sanchez Gonzalez1 petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’s denial of his motion to reopen his 2008 removal order. Because the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the 2008 removal order twice upon Sanchez’s illegal reentries into the country, the BIA determined that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the 1This opinion refers to the petitioner as Sanchez, adopting the nomenclature the petitioner used in his briefing. No. 20-3938 Sanchez-Gonzalez v. Garland Page 2 order. The relevant section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), mandates that if “the prior order of removal is reinstated . . . [the order] is not subject to being reopened.” We cannot, therefore, give Sanchez the relief he seeks. See Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 732 F.3d 789, 795 (7th Cir. 2013); cf. Moreno-Martinez v. Barr, 932 F.3d 461, 465 (6th Cir. 2019). The petition for review is therefore DENIED. I. Sanchez immigrated to the United States from Honduras in 1994 and became a lawful permanent resident when he married a U.S. citizen. In 1999, Sanchez pleaded guilty to sexual battery in the Greene County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas. The Immigration and Naturalization Service served Sanchez with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings because sexual battery is a crime involving moral turpitude, which merits removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). The immigration judge ordered Sanchez removed. On appeal, the BIA noted that Sanchez implied “that he pled guilty to sexual battery perhaps in reliance on an assurance from his prior counsel that a conviction would not result in additional immigration consequences” but concluded that “the B[IA] has no authority to invalidate or look behind his criminal conviction.” Immigration authorities encountered Sanchez in the United States again in 2012 and 2018. Each time, they reinstated the original 2008 removal order and removed him. But while reviewing Sanchez’s case following his 2018 detention, his counsel realized that his original guilty plea was legally infirm. Ohio law requires that a judge advise defendants such as Sanchez that a guilty plea might result in “the consequence[] of deportation.” O.R.C. § 2943.031(A). Because the state-court judge in Sanchez’s case failed to give that advisement, the court vacated the sexual battery conviction. Sanchez instead entered a new plea for simple assault—which does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. Sanchez then moved the BIA to reopen his 2008 removal order because he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals