USCA11 Case: 20-13015 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-13015 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SOULEYMANE DIALLO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A079-059-186 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-13015 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 20-13015 Before GRANT, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Fourteen years after his removal proceedings had ended, Souleymane Diallo, a Senegalese national, asked to reopen them so that he could apply for cancellation of removal. In his motion, Diallo argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions justified giving him a second—and belated—chance to seek that relief. An immigration judge denied his motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. So do we. Although recent Supreme Court decisions mean that Diallo might be eligible for cancellation of removal, they do not excuse his delay in moving to reopen his proceedings. We therefore deny his petition. I. In 1999 Diallo entered the United States on a four-month tourist visa—and stayed long after that visa had expired. Four years later, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended Diallo and served him with a Notice to Appear that charged him with overstaying his visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). The Notice to Appear also told him that he needed to attend removal proceedings in Atlanta at a date and time “to be set.” In August 2003, the Atlanta Immigration Court sent to Diallo a Notice of Hearing informing him that his removal hearing would occur at 9:00 a.m. on March 4, 2004. Diallo attended that hearing and was granted voluntary departure, a form of discretionary relief that allowed him “to voluntarily leave the country” at his own expense by a set date: USCA11 Case: 20-13015 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 3 of 6 20-13015 Opinion of the Court 3 here, June 2, 2004. Id. § 1229c(a)(1); Blanc v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 996 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021). Once again Diallo did not leave on time. He stayed in the United States for over a decade, neither running afoul of immigration authorities nor obtaining a right to remain. Then in 2018—more than fourteen years after his removal proceedings had ended—he moved to reopen them so that he could apply for cancellation of removal. Cancellation of removal allows an otherwise removable person to remain in the United States. See Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442, 1445 (2020). A noncitizen is eligible for this relief if he meets four statutory requirements, one of which is that he must have been physically present in the United States continuously over the ten years preceding his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s “stop- time rule,” a noncitizen stops accruing continuous physical presence when he “is served a notice to appear.” Id. § 1229b(d)(1); Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals