RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0250p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ALAIN CUEVAS-NUNO, ┐ Petitioner, │ │ > No. 20-3034 v. │ │ WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, │ Respondent. │ ┘ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 205 298 571. Decided and Filed: August 7, 2020 Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Peter Constantine M. Maniatis, SAENZ & MANIATIS, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Sarah A. Byrd, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________ OPINION _________________ NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that parties must exhaust their claims with the Board of Immigration Appeals before we can review them. This gives the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security “a full opportunity to consider a petitioner’s claims, [and] avoid[s] premature interference with the agenc[ies’] processes[.]” Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Alain Cuevas-Nuno failed to administratively exhaust each of the claims he brings before us. So we DISMISS his petition for lack of jurisdiction. No. 20-3034 Cuevas-Nuno v. Barr Page 2 I. Cuevas-Nuno, a native of Mexico, entered the United States illegally on an unknown date. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) charged Cuevas-Nuno as subject to removal from the United States, under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. It personally served him with a notice to appear that included the following warning: Failure to appear at your hearing except for exceptional circumstances may result in . . . [y]our hearing [] be[ing] held in your absence[.] . . . [And a]n order of removal will be entered against you if the [DHS] establishe[s] by clear, unequivocal[,] and convincing evidence that a) you or your attorney has been provided this notice and b) you are removable. (AR 132–33.) Cuevas-Nuno attended his first master hearing, admitted the allegations against him, and conceded removability as charged. He then applied for cancellation of removal and made a successful motion to transfer his case from Virginia to the Immigration Court in Memphis, Tennessee. That court set Cuevas-Nuno’s next master hearing for October 4, 2017 and sent a notice of the hearing to Cuevas-Nuno’s counsel of record. Cuevas-Nuno did not attend his second hearing. So the Immigration Judge conducted an in absentia hearing, found Cuevas-Nuno’s cancellation of removal application abandoned, dismissed it for lack of prosecution, and ordered Cuevas-Nuno removed to Mexico. Sixteen days later, Cuevas-Nuno moved to reopen. In support of this motion he attached an affidavit, where he declared: “I missed my Master Calendar Hearing on October 4th, 2017 in Tennessee Immigration Court because I became confused about the date of my hearing.” (AR 68.) DHS opposed this motion, arguing that an Immigration Judge can only reopen an in absentia removal order if the alien shows that his failure to appear was because of “exceptional circumstances” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals