DLD-287 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1769 ___________ JOSE MOLINA-BULNES, a/k/a Arturo Mezo, a/k/a Ricardo Mendez, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A094-300-586) Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 26, 2019 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 5, 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. Jose Molina-Bulnes petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying relief. After Molina-Bulnes filed his opening brief in this Court, the Government filed a motion for summary disposition asking us to deny the petition. Because the petition presents no substantial question for review, we will grant the Government’s motion and will deny the petition for review. Molina-Bulnes, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States illegally in November 1995 when he was 17 years old. In 2017, the Court of Common Pleas for Washington County, Pennsylvania, convicted Molina-Bulnes of his third DUI. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) thereafter issued a notice to appear, charging him with removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled. Represented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the IJ, Molina-Bulnes admitted the charge. On June 4, 2018, he submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting that he is a member of a particular social group (PSG). At that time, the IJ set August 24 as the deadline for submitting additional evidence for consideration at the hearing scheduled for September 26. Molina-Bulnes subsequently (on August 23) sought to expand his asylum application to include a protected ground of imputed political opinion and simultaneously moved for more time to file exhibits in support of the added claim. The IJ granted Molina-Bulnes’ motion in part and denied it in part, allowing documents that were late because of translation to be filed before September 10, but barring all documents that were late for other reasons as untimely and 2 without good cause. On the eve of the merits hearing (September 25), Molina-Bulnes filed a motion to continue because he still had not received the documents in a format that he could submit to the IJ. The IJ denied the motion for continuance. After the hearing on September 26 at which only Molina-Bulnes testified, the IJ rejected the asylum application as untimely because Molina-Bulnes had filed it beyond the one-year deadline without excuse. The IJ also found that Molina-Bulnes was not credible, and that, even if deemed credible, he did not qualify for any other relief sought. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals