NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 18-2090 _____________ AMIR VANA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A078-492-675) Immigration Judge: Hon. Rosalind Malloy _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 22, 2019 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Filed May 24, 2019) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Amir Vana petitions for review of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)’s denial of his motion to reopen. We will deny his petition in part and dismiss it in part for lack of jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND This is not the first time that Vana has appeared before us. In 2009, we considered his petition for review of the order of removal in the proceedings he now seeks to reopen. Vana v. Att’y Gen., 341 F. App’x 836, 836-39 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Accordingly, we start with the facts as laid out in our previous opinion: Vana is a citizen of Israel who entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in 1993 and stayed beyond the six-month period. In June 2000, he was placed in removal proceedings. In December 2000, the immigration judge (IJ) found Vana removable for overstaying his visa, denied voluntary departure, and ordered him removed to Israel. In November 2000, during the pendency of his removal proceedings, Vana pled guilty to making false statements on a United States passport application, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542; he was sentenced in 2001. During the pendency of his BIA appeal, Vana’s wife, a United States citizen, filed an I–130 petition on Vana’s behalf, which was approved. In 2002, the BIA granted Vana’s motion to remand the removal proceedings for consideration of Vana’s application for adjustment of status. On remand, the Government charged Vana with additional grounds of removability. After protracted proceedings that included an appeal to the Board and a remand to Immigration Court, the IJ determined that the Government had proved Vana’s removability by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the IJ found that Vana had stayed in the United States beyond the time allowed by his visitor’s visa and that he knowingly and willingly attempted to obtain a United States passport under a false name, a false birth date and place of birth (in the United States), and false social security number. The IJ pretermitted Vana’s application for adjustment of status, finding that he was statutorily ineligible .… Vana appealed the denial of his request for adjustment of status; the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Vana filed a timely petition for review. 2 Id. at 837. We denied that petition. Id. at 837, 839. Despite all of that, Vana was not removed, and, eight years later, he filed a motion with the BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals