NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2034 ___________ GLENROY ALPHONSO DEER, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A038-574-604) Immigration Judge: Honorable Daniel A. Morris ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 23, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 25, 2019) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Glenroy Alphonso Deer, a citizen of Jamaica who is proceeding pro se, petitions for review of two orders issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part. Deer was admitted to the United States as an immigrant in 1984, but he was deported in 1993 for having been convicted in New Jersey state court of a controlled substance violation and a firearms offense. 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)(i) (recodified as 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)) & § 1251(a)(2)(C) (recodified as 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C)). Deer illegally reentered the United States and, in 2013, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the prior order of deportation. Deer filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the initial deportation proceedings. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, concluded that Deer had not met the procedural requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and found that Deer had not acted diligently or established prejudice. It therefore refused to exercise its authority to reopen sua sponte. Deer next filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA denied on February 26, 2016. The Board stated that Deer’s “motion persuades of no error in [the previous] determination that [Deer] did not establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, nor did he warrant sua sponte reopening.” With respect to Deer’s submission of evidence 1 In 1987, Deer was convicted in New Jersey state court of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See N.J.S.A. § 24:21-19a(1). Two years later, he was convicted in the same court of unlawful possession of a handgun, see N.J.S.A. § 2C:39- 5b, and possession of weapon for an unlawful purpose, see N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-4a. 2 to establish that he had since complied with the Lozada requirements, the BIA concluded that a motion to reconsider was not a proper vehicle for introducing evidence and that, in any event, the evidence did not affect the determination that reopening was not warranted. Meanwhile, Deer expressed a fear of returning to Jamaica. Accordingly, his case was referred to an Immigration Judge for “withholding only” proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(e). Deer testified in support of his claims. The Immigration Judge determined that Deer was ineligible for asylum because he was subject to a reinstated ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals