In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 17-2116 ALVARO CORTINA-CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A200 557 821 ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 2018 — DECIDED JULY 5, 2018 Before BAUER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Alvaro Cortina-Chavez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to deny his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his administrative appeal. We dismiss his petition to the extent that he seeks review of the BIA’s refusal to grant sua sponte 2 No. 17-2116 review of its prior decision, and we deny the remainder of the petition. I. Cortina-Chavez is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States on an unknown date at an unknown place, without presenting himself for inspection by an immi- gration officer. He came to the attention of immigration authorities after a December 2010 arrest for driving under the influence. On December 28, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Cortina-Chavez by filing a Notice to Appear. Cortina-Chavez conceded that he was removable but applied for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the application for cancellation of removal because Cortina-Chavez failed to establish that he had been continuously, physically present in the United States for ten years prior to filing his application. The IJ also concluded that Cortina-Chavez was ineligible for asylum because he did not submit his application within one year of arrival, and did not come within any exception to the one-year limit. The IJ denied withholding of removal because Cortina-Chavez failed to demonstrate that he faced past persecution in Mexico or that he would likely be persecuted on his return to Mexico. Finally, the IJ denied his application under the Convention Against Torture because he did not establish that it was more likely than not that he would be subject to torture if he returned to Mexico. The IJ therefore ordered Cortina-Chavez removed to Mexico. No. 17-2116 3 Cortina-Chavez, who was represented by counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with the BIA. Item 6 of the Notice of Appeal Form EOIR-26 (“Form”) directs the person submitting the document to “[s]tate in detail the reason(s) for this appeal.” The Form provides a space for this purpose but also allows additional sheets to be attached. The Form contains a promi- nent warning, set out in a black box immediately below the space provided for the detailed reasons for the appeal: WARNING: You must clearly explain the specific facts and law on which you base your appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision. The Board may summarily dismiss your appeal if it cannot tell from this Notice of Appeal or any statements attached to this Notice of Appeal, why you are appealing. Administrative Record at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals