NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 22-1263 ______________ CARLOS ALBERTO ERAZO-CABALLERO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A098-985-941) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 6, 2022 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: December 7, 2022) ______________ OPINION * ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Carlos Alberto Erazo-Caballero (“Erazo”) petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his case sua sponte. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I A Erazo, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States in May 2005 without having been admitted or paroled. The Department of Homeland Security thereafter initiated removal proceedings against Erazo and served him with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) at a time and date to be set. A subsequent notice ordered Erazo to appear on June 22, 2005. The hearing was rescheduled but Erazo failed to appear, and the IJ ordered him removed in absentia. B After Erazo was arrested in 2011, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, contending that he failed to appear at his removal hearing because his father failed to inform him of the hearing date. The IJ granted the motion to reopen, rescinded the removal order, and scheduled another removal hearing. Erazo failed to timely file an application for relief from removal, and the IJ accordingly determined that he had abandoned the opportunity to do so. The BIA reversed and remanded, finding that his counsel was ineffective in failing to timely file an application for relief. On remand, Erazo failed to appear for his hearing, and, in 2014, the IJ again ordered him removed in 2 absentia. Three years later, Erazo filed a motion to reopen his case based on changed country conditions in Honduras, which the IJ denied and the BIA affirmed. Erazo filed a motion to reconsider with the BIA, in which he alleged for the first time that the NTA was defective because it omitted a date and time for the removal hearing and claimed that the IJ therefore lacked jurisdiction. The BIA denied the motion as both untimely and meritless. We denied his petition for review in part, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and dismissed it in part, concluding that his petition improperly asked us to consider his unexhausted cancellation of removal claim. Erazo- Caballero v. Att’y Gen., 810 F. App’x 89, 91 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Thereafter, Erazo filed a motion to reopen his case sua sponte with the BIA, citing a change in the law that he asserted affected his eligibility for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals