FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 22, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ALEJANDRO LOPEZ-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Nos. 18-9522 & 18-9545 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Alejandro Lopez-Vazquez is a native and citizen of Mexico. He is subject to a final order of removal based on a 1996 state court drug conviction. In 2014, Lopez1 successfully withdrew his 1996 guilty plea. Three years later he filed a motion In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, William P. Barr is substituted for Jefferson B. Sessions, III, as the respondent in this action. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 We follow Petitioner’s lead in using his first surname only. asking the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings based on the vacatur of the state court conviction that had served as the basis for removability. Distinguishing this court’s decision in Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 678 F.3d 811 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc), the BIA concluded it lacked jurisdiction to sua sponte reopen Lopez’s removal proceedings. Lopez filed a petition for review of that decision with this court, No. 18-9522, and he also filed a motion to reconsider with the BIA. In his motion to reconsider, Lopez argued that the BIA had erred in distinguishing Contreras-Bocanegra, and under that decision the BIA did have jurisdiction to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA disagreed that it had erred in its jurisdictional determination, but also concluded that an exercise of its discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte was not warranted in Lopez’s case, even assuming it had jurisdiction. The BIA denied reconsideration, and Lopez filed petition No. 18-9545. The two petitions were procedurally consolidated for our consideration.2 Because the BIA assumed on reconsideration that it had jurisdiction and rejected Lopez’s motion for sua sponte reopening on the merits, Lopez’s petition for review challenging the BIA’s jurisdictional ruling, No. 18-9522, is moot. And we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening, No. 18-9545. As a result, we dismiss both petitions for review. 2 Separate agency records were filed in each case. We cite to the agency record for No. 18-9545 because it contains all the materials necessary for our review of both petitions. 2 Background Lopez is a native and citizen of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals