NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-3328 _____________ ANA CECILIA DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _____________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A094-760-527) Immigration Judge: Frederic G. Leeds ___________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 20, 2021 ___________ Before: CHAGARES, HARDIMAN, and MATEY, Circuit Judges. (Filed: September 29, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. Ana Cecilia Dominguez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings so that she could apply for cancellation of removal. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition. I. We write for the parties and so recount only the facts necessary to our decision. Dominguez is a native and citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States in 2000 and overstayed her visa. She now lives in New Jersey with two adult daughters and an eleven-year-old son who is a United States citizen. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice to appear (“NTA”) that placed Dominguez in removal proceedings. Though Dominguez did not realize it at the time, that NTA was defective because it lacked a date and time for her hearing. She conceded removability and applied for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), which an immigration judge denied in 2009 based on her failure to establish that she was continuously present in the United States for the required period of time. Dominguez appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the denial of relief. Dominguez moved to reopen her removal proceedings on three separate occasions between 2014 and 2018, but the BIA denied her motions each time. In her first motion to reopen, Dominguez again sought TPS status. In her second, she claimed prior counsel was ineffective for failing to apply for asylum based on the murder of her brother and daughter by gang members in El Salvador. In her third motion, filed in May 2018, 2 Dominguez argued that changed conditions in El Salvador warranted reopening her removal proceedings so that she could apply for asylum. Dominguez filed a fourth motion to reopen in April 2020, this time to apply for cancellation of removal. She asserted that the NTA placing her in removal proceedings was defective pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and this Court’s decision in Guadalupe v. Attorney General, 951 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2020). Dominguez contended that she had now resided in the United States for long enough to apply successfully for cancellation of removal, as only service of a complete NTA stops the accrual of time counted towards a noncitizen’s period of residency in the United States under the “stop-time” rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A). According to Dominguez, this Court’s decision in Guadalupe …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals