Appellate Case: 21-9510 Document: 010110778094 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 6, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court AMARILDO MOLINA-ROJAS; MARIELA REMIGIO-CARHUAMACA, Petitioners, v. No. 21-9510 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioners Amarildo Molina-Rojas and Mariela Remigio-Carhuamaca are natives and citizens of Peru. An immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications for cancellation of removal and ordered them removed from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal from that ruling as untimely filed. They filed two sequential motions to reopen, both of which the Board denied. * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-9510 Document: 010110778094 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 2 Petitioners have now filed a petition for review. We dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), deny the remainder of the petition. I. Background Petitioners entered the United States without inspection or admission in 2003 and 2004. In 2013 and 2014, they were served with Notices to Appear charging them with removability. They conceded removability but submitted applications for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The IJ pretermitted Ms. Remigio-Carhuamaca’s application because a forgery conviction rendered her statutorily ineligible for cancellation. The IJ denied Mr. Molina-Rojas’s application because he failed to demonstrate his removal would cause Petitioners’ daughter the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship necessary for cancellation. Petitioners’ appeal had to be filed with the Board on or before August 22, 2019, but they did not file it until August 26, 2019, four days late. On October 24, 2019, the Board summarily dismissed the appeal as untimely. On November 25, 2019, Petitioners filed a “Motion To Reopen Summarily Dismissing The Appeal Due To Failure To Timely File.” R. at 102. They stated that the attorney who represented them during removal proceedings told them he was going to file an appeal but left the law firm before doing so, left no forwarding address, and did not alert Petitioners or anyone at the firm. Petitioners obtained a new attorney at the same firm, but she was only able to file the appeal late. 2 Appellate Case: 21-9510 Document: 010110778094 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 3 On January 30, 2020, the Board denied the motion. The Board construed it as a motion for reconsideration of its …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals