FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 14, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ISAIAS JIMENEZ JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9577 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Isaías Jiménez Juárez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of removal in which the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied his motion to remand. In that motion, Mr. Jiménez Juárez argued that he may be eligible to apply for cancellation of removal based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. We deny the Government’s motion to continue the abatement of this matter, and we lift the abatement. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Jiménez Juárez first entered the United States without inspection in October 2006. In February 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) instituted removal proceedings by serving a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on him. Rather than specify the date and time of the removal hearing, the NTA listed the date and time as “[t]o be set.” Admin. R. at 25. About two weeks later, DHS served Mr. Jiménez Juárez with a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) directing him to appear before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in September 2014. Mr. Jiménez Juárez admitted the allegations in the NTA and conceded inadmissibility. He applied for asylum, restriction on removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After the hearing, the IJ denied those requests and granted voluntary departure. Mr. Jiménez Juárez appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued Pereira. Pereira addressed the impact of a deficient NTA on the “stop-time rule.” Noncitizens who are subject to removal proceedings and who have accrued 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States may be eligible for cancellation 2 of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).1 Under the stop-time rule, however, the period of continuous presence ends when the government serves an NTA. See id. § 1229b(d)(1)(A). Pereira held that when an NTA fails to designate the specific time and place of a removal proceeding, it does not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal. 138 S. Ct. at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals