UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1326 ANTONIO JOSE ZAMBRANO REYES, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued: May 9, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Guido Moreira, LAW OFFICE OF GUIDO MOREIRA, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Virginia Lee Gordon, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Antonio Jose Zambrano Reyes, a noncitizen, was ordered removed from the United States. Zambrano Reyes did not judicially appeal that determination. Instead, two months later, he filed a motion to reopen his immigration proceedings, which the Board of Immigration Appeals denied. In this appeal, Zambrano Reyes argues that the immigration judge lacked authority to order his removal in the first place and, alternatively, that the Board erred by refusing to reopen his case. We disagree. First, we recently considered and rejected the argument at the heart of Zambrano Reyes’s appeal: that an alleged filing defect deprived the immigration judge of “jurisdiction” over his removal proceedings, rendering the entire administrative process void. See United States v. Cortez, No. 19-4055 (4th Cir. July 17, 2019). And second, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Zambrano Reyes’s motion to reopen. I. Zambrano Reyes challenges only the process by which his immigration proceedings were commenced and then the Board’s refusal to reopen the proceedings after they concluded – but not the actual removal decision that came between. Accordingly, we focus on the facts relevant to the start and end of Zambrano Reyes’s immigration case. Zambrano Reyes is a citizen of Mexico who unlawfully entered the United States in 1996. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security (“Department”) commenced 2 removal proceedings against Zambrano Reyes, serving him with a document labeled “Notice to Appear” that advised him of the charges against him. The notice provided Zambrano Reyes with the location of the immigration court where his removal proceedings would be held, but did not provide the time of the hearing, instead stating that it would be held “on a date to be set at a time to be set.” A.R. 480. That notice was filed with the immigration court on October 24, 2013, and five days later, the court sent Zambrano Reyes a follow-up notice providing the date and time of his hearing. Zambrano Reyes attended that hearing, represented by counsel. He conceded his unlawful presence, but sought “cancellation of removal,” which allows certain noncitizens who have been physically present in the country for at least ten ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals