Case: 19-60493 Document: 00515348501 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60493 March 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce LEONARDO ANDRES ORELLANA-JULIAN, Clerk Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A089-716-964 Before WIENER, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Leonardo Andres Orellana-Julian asks us to reverse the Board of Immigration Appeals’s determination that his motion to reopen is without merit and to remand for reconsideration. For the same reasons articulated by the BIA, we decline to do so and, therefore, deny his petition for review. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60493 Document: 00515348501 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 No. 19-60493 I Orellana-Julian entered the United States illegally on December 1, 2002. 1 Nearly seven years later, the Government filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) with the Immigration Court, charging Orellana-Julian with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). To avoid removal, Orellana- Julian submitted applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. On January 19, 2012, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) issued an oral decision denying each of Orellana-Julian’s applications. Orellana-Julian failed to appeal the IJ’s decision until February 22, 2012, one day past the thirty-day filing deadline. Accordingly, the BIA dismissed his appeal as untimely. More than five years later, Orellana-Julian moved to reopen his case based on changed personal circumstances. 2 The IJ denied the motion to reopen, observing that a change in personal circumstances is not a change in country conditions that would justify a motion to reopen. See Singh v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 220, 222–23 (5th Cir. 2016). Orellana-Julian timely filed an appeal to the BIA, contesting the denial of his motion to reopen. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), holding that an NTA that omits the time and place of the removal hearing is defective and does not trigger the “stop-time” rule. Based on this ruling, Orellana-Julian filed a supplemental motion to reopen and requested that his case be remanded based on his belief that he was eligible for 1 The record provides competing information, in some places stating that Orellana- Julian entered the United States in 2001, not 2002. Because he cannot establish ten years of residence regardless of if he entered in 2001 or 2002, we use the date of entry Orellana- Julian provides in his briefing on appeal. 2Orellana-Julian provided evidence that his sister had been kidnapped by a Maoist group in Peru. 2 Case: 19-60493 Document: 00515348501 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 No. 19-60493 cancellation of removal because his NTA was defective. The BIA dismissed the appeal and denied ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals