NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-3293 ______________ JUAN CARLOS ARGUETA DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of The Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A073-540-992) Immigration Judge: Robert P. Owens ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 8, 2019 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 22, 2019) ______________ 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. Juan Carlos Argueta Dominguez petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we will deny the petition. I Dominguez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in 1991. In 2000, he was served with a Notice to Appear that charged him with removability, which he conceded. He then sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. In 2006, Dominguez added a request for cancellation of removal. In 2008, Dominguez attended his removal proceedings with counsel and withdrew his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, leaving only his cancellation of removal claim. The Department of Homeland Security moved to pretermit the application for cancellation of removal, contending that Dominguez failed to satisfy the continuous physical presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (allowing for cancellation of removal if alien has been physically present in the United States for at least ten years). Counsel for Dominguez stated that Dominguez may “not have the ten years” needed for cancellation of removal. AR 363. The IJ granted the motion to pretermit and ordered that Dominguez be removed. Dominguez appealed the IJ’s decision. In 2009, the BIA dismissed Dominguez’s appeal, concluding that he voluntarily withdrew his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and was 2 ineligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to satisfy the continuous physical presence requirement.1 In 2018, Dominguez moved to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that (1) his previous attorney gave ineffective assistance by withdrawing Dominguez’s claims for relief, and (2) the Guatemalan military would persecute him because he is indigenous. The BIA denied the motion because Dominguez failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing his ineffective assistance claim, showed no prejudice from the ineffective assistance he allegedly received, and did not introduce evidence of changed country conditions. Dominguez petitions for review of the order denying his motion to reopen. II2 Generally, a motion to reopen must be filed “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Because Dominguez filed his motion to reopen several years after the BIA dismissed his appeal, he relies on two exceptions to the 90-day deadline: equitable tolling and changed country conditions. Neither exception applies here. A 1 With new counsel, Dominguez moved ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals