NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0118n.06 No. 19-3650 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED ANA JUDITH MURCIA-PINTO, ) Feb 24, 2020 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Ana Judith Murcia-Pinto petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY the petition for review. Murcia-Pinto, a native of Guatemala and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in 2007. In October 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Murcia-Pinto a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging her with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The notice to appear ordered Murcia-Pinto to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) on a date and at a time “to be set.” In November 2010, the immigration court sent Murcia-Pinto a notice scheduling a hearing for June 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.; she appeared at that hearing. Murcia-Pinto later conceded removability as charged and filed an application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting her fear of persecution in Honduras by the Chinchilla gang. After a hearing, the IJ denied Murcia-Pinto’s application for No. 19-3650, Murcia-Pinto v. Barr withholding of removal and CAT protection but granted her request for voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed Murcia-Pinto’s appeal from the IJ’s denial of her application for withholding of removal but remanded for further proceedings regarding her request for voluntary departure. On remand, the IJ issued a removal order at Murcia-Pinto’s request. This court later denied Murcia- Pinto’s petition for review of the BIA’s order dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for withholding of removal. Murcia-Pinto v. Sessions, No. 17-3255 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2017) (order). Murcia-Pinto subsequently filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings to apply for asylum and related relief based on changed country conditions. The BIA denied Murcia-Pinto’s motion. Two months later, Murcia-Pinto filed another motion to reopen, this time to apply for cancellation of removal in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). To be eligible for cancellation of removal, an alien must have “been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of” the application for relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Under the stop-time rule, the period of continuous physical presence in the United States is deemed to end when the alien is served a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A). In Pereira, the Supreme Court held that “[a] notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals