NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0617n.06 Nos. 18-3037, 19-3011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 13, 2019 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk MAYLEN PANAFLOR DABLE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ) ORDERS OF THE BOARD OF v. ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) OPINION ) Respondent. ) Before: MOORE, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which CLAY, J., joined, and SUTTON, J., joined in all but footnote 6 (pp. 8–9) of the majority opinion. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In these partially consolidated cases, Petitioner Maylen Panaflor Dable seeks review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motions to reopen her removal proceedings.1 Because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of her first motion to reopen, requesting that the BIA exercise its discretion to reopen her proceedings sua sponte, we dismiss Dable’s petition in Case No. 18-3037. We dismiss her petition in Case No. 19-3011 for the same reason. We cannot consider her argument that her second motion to reopen was subject to equitable tolling until Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), was decided because she failed administratively to 1 Due to the overlapping factual and legal nature of Dable’s cases, we issue one combined decision, which will be docketed under both case numbers. Nos. 18-3037, 19-3011, Dable v. Barr exhaust this argument. Thus, we must treat the second BIA decision as one declining to exercise its discretion to reopen her proceedings sua sponte, which we lack jurisdiction to review. I. BACKGROUND2 Dable is a citizen of the Philippines, who in 2001 was admitted to the United States with a one-year H-2B nonimmigrant visa. Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 26. It appears that Dable was the victim of a scheme where individuals obtained the visa for her and purported to offer her a three-year work contract in the United States, renewable every six months, in exchange for $3,500. See id. at 159. After the first six months, her contract was not renewed. Id. Dable moved to Michigan, hoping to find a reputable employer to file for a new work visa for her. See id. But Dable was not so lucky, and she overstayed her visa and worked without authorization. Id. at 26. In May 2004, Dable was detained during a trip to visit her brother. Id. at 157. Because she had overstayed her visa, she was charged as a deportable alien present in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Id. at 26. The notice to appear, which detailed the charge, provided that the date of the hearing was “on a date to be set” and “at a time to be set.” Id. Eleven days later, she received a notice of hearing from the immigration court that provided a date, time, and location for her removal proceedings. Id. at 278. After various rescheduling and continuances, as well as a change of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals