Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11755 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A091-084-741 AIDEN IFEANYI ANUFORO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 2, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Aiden Anuforo, an alien proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. He sought to have the BIA terminate his removal proceedings on the ground that his Notice to Appear (NTA) was fatally defective, under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), as it failed to include the time and date of his removal proceeding. He argued the defective NTA effectively deprived the IJ of jurisdiction over his removal proceedings. The BIA found Anuforo’s motion to be time and number barred, and further concluded that, even assuming he could justify his motion’s procedural deficiencies, his arguments in support of termination were without merit. On appeal, Anuforo argues the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen as time-barred and number-barred. He further argues that the BIA erred in rejecting his substantive argument that his removal proceeding was subject to termination under Pereira. Anuforo also attacks the underlying IJ and BIA decisions finding him removable and denying his application for cancellation of removal. After addressing our jurisdiction, we consider Anuforo’s substantive arguments as appropriate. I. JURISDICTION Before considering Anuforo’s substantive arguments, we must determine the scope of our jurisdiction in this matter. We review de novo our subject matter 2 Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 3 of 8 jurisdiction over a petition for review. Butalova v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 768 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 2014). Moreover, we review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review any of the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions leading up to the denial of cancellation of removal in March 2011, as the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions bar review of a final order of removal against an alien who is removable for having committed a criminal offense and of the BIA’s determination that an alien does not qualify for cancellation of removal. See INA §§ 242(a)(2)(C), 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We have held those the same provisions bar review of motions to reopen that rest on such determinations. See Guzman-Munoz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 733 F.3d 1311, 1313– 14 (11th Cir. 2013); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003). We therefore dismiss Anuforo’s petition to the extent it challenges the IJ’s and BIA’s underlying decisions finding him removable as ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals