FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE GONZALEZ-CUEVAS, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9567 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORITZ, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Jose Gonzalez-Cuevas appeals an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and consider an application for cancellation of removal. The Board determined that Gonzalez-Cuevas was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he had not been present in the United States for a “continuous period” of at least ten years. 8 * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Under the stop-time rule, the Board reasoned, Gonzalez- Cuevas’s continuous-presence period ended when the government sent him a notice to appear informing him of the removal proceedings, followed by another document a few weeks later stating the date and time of a hearing. In its response brief, the government acknowledged that the Board’s decision conflicted with our decision in Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr, which held that “the stop- time rule is triggered by one complete notice to appear rather than a combination of documents.” 953 F.3d 1176, 1178 (10th Cir. 2020). As such, the government “agree[d] that remand is appropriate.” Aplee. Br. 9. We abated the appeal, however, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in a case involving the same stop-time issue we faced in Banuelos-Galviz. The Supreme Court has now decided that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland, No. 19-863, 2021 WL 1676619 (Apr. 29, 2021), and the government recognizes that it “is in line with the . . . holding in Banuelos-Galviz.” Resp’t Status Report 2, May 5, 2021. Accordingly, we lift the abatement, grant Gonzalez-Cuevas’s petition for review, and remand for further proceedings. See Artur v. Barr, 819 F. App’x 618, 621 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (“Because [the Board’s precedent] is no longer good law in this circuit, we grant the petition for review and remand for the [Board] to consider the motion to reopen in light of our decision in Banuelos-Galviz.”). Entered for the Court Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge 2 20-9567 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ca10 10th Cir. Gonzalez-Cuevas v. Garland 10 May 2021 Unpublished 5b0093b358e58a8de2df49c3339defb86843e61f
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals