RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0063p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT VITALINA LUCAS LOPEZ, ┐ Petitioner, │ │ > No. 20-3762 v. │ │ │ MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 097 208 903. Decided and Filed: March 12, 2021 Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Russell S. Mainord, THE LAW OFFICES OF RUSSELL S. MAINORD, Hixson, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Anthony O. Pottinger, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________ OPINION _________________ JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In 2004, an Immigration Judge (IJ) issued an in absentia removal order for Vitalina Lopez. Fourteen years later, the IJ denied her motion to reopen those proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Lopez’s appeal. Lopez now petitions for review of that decision and asks that we also assess the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen her case under its discretionary authority. We deny Lopez’s petition and dismiss her additional request for lack of jurisdiction. No. 20-3762 Lucas Lopez v. Garland Page 2 I. Vitalina Lopez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in the 1990s without admission or parole. In 2003, the government initiated removal proceedings against Lopez, charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The government sent Lopez a Notice to Appear for her removal proceeding that contained a warning in English that if she failed to attend the hearing, the IJ could order her removal, and she might be arrested and detained by the Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) as a result. Lopez failed to appear at her removal hearing as directed, so the IJ ordered her removal in absentia. Immigration officials detained Lopez a few years later. On December 6, 2017, Lopez filed a motion with the immigration court to reopen her removal proceedings, claiming that she was the derivative beneficiary of her husband’s pending application for protection under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). The IJ denied Lopez’s motion, finding that Lopez’s NACARA-based claims were untimely and that her motion failed to include the required documents. The IJ also declined to exercise its discretionary authority to sua sponte reopen Lopez’s removal proceedings. On June 22, 2020, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Lopez’s appeal as untimely and without merit. It also rejected Lopez’s additional argument on appeal that the 2004 in absentia order of removal should be rescinded because the Notice to Appear was delivered in English, not in her native language. And like the IJ, the BIA rejected Lopez’s request that it exercise its discretionary authority to sua sponte reopen her removal proceedings. Lopez petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. II. Motion to Reopen. Where, as here, “the BIA provides its own reasoning for denying a motion to reopen rather than summarily affirming the IJ, we review the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals