FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 14, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CARLOS BARBECHO-CAJAMORCA, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9577 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, MATHESON, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Carlos Barbecho-Cajamorca, a native and citizen of Ecuador, appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from a decision by an immigration judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. While his appeal was pending, Petitioner filed a motion to remand so that he could apply for cancellation of removal in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). After the BIA * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. dismissed his appeal and denied his motion to remand, he petitioned this court for review. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition. BACKGROUND In 2007, Petitioner was apprehended while crossing the border between Mexico and Arizona and was taken into custody by immigration officials. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings by serving him with a notice to appear (NTA), alleging he was removable for illegally entering the United States. The NTA indicated his initial appearance before an IJ would be at a date and time “to be set.” Admin. R. at 817. The NTA also stated that Petitioner was required to provide his mailing address and to “notify the Immigration Court immediately by using Form EOIR-33 whenever [he] change[d] [his] address.” Id. at 818. The NTA warned he could be ordered removed if he failed to attend his hearing. Petitioner signed the NTA, requested an immediate hearing, and confirmed he received notice in Spanish of the consequences for failing to appear. Upon his release from custody, DHS reminded Petitioner of his obligation to keep his address current and gave him a change-of-address form. Petitioner provided an address in New Jersey, but he and his family traveled to New York, where they lived for the next several years. He did not complete a change-of-address form or otherwise notify DHS of his New York address. On May 30—shortly after his release from custody—DHS sent a Notice of Hearing (NOH) to Petitioner at the New Jersey address, informing him that his hearing was scheduled for August 1. The NOH was not returned as undeliverable. On August 2, DHS sent him a second NOH 2 at the New Jersey address, informing him that his hearing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals