NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0546n.06 No. 19-4203 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Sep 22, 2020 JOSE ALFREDO ESPARZA-ESPINO, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Jose Alfredo Esparza-Espino petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY the petition for review. Esparza-Espino, a native and citizen of Mexico, first entered the United States without inspection in 1999. On May 25, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Esparza-Espino with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The immigration court sent Esparza-Espino a hearing notice on June 13, 2012. Appearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Esparza-Espino admitted the factual allegations set forth in the notice to appear and conceded removability as charged. Esparza-Espino then filed an application for cancellation of removal, asserting that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen No. 19-4203, Esparza-Espino v. Barr child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). At the hearing on his application, the DHS disputed only one of the requirements for cancellation of removal: Esparza-Espino’s physical presence in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years. See id. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Esparza-Espino testified that he went to Mexico in December 2005 and again in January 2007 but could not recall specifically how long he stayed in Mexico or when he returned to the United States. Denying Esparza-Espino’s application, the IJ concluded that he had failed to prove that either departure from the United States was for ninety days or less. See id. § 1229b(d)(2). The BIA dismissed Esparza-Espino’s appeal, agreeing with the IJ that he had failed to meet his burden to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States and in particular had failed to meet his burden to show that his departures from the United States lasted ninety days or less. This court dismissed Esparza-Espino’s subsequent petition for review for want of prosecution. Esparza- Espino v. Sessions, No. 17-3606 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2018) (order). Well over a year after the final administrative order of removal, Esparza-Espino filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings. Esparza-Espino sought termination of the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), asserting that the notice to appear issued to him did not include the date and time of his initial hearing. If the BIA did not terminate the proceedings, Esparza- Espino argued, his application for cancellation of removal should be approved ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals