FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ January 22, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert JORGE EDUARDO ARAIZA, Clerk of Court Petitioner, v. No. 19-9568 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Jorge Eduardo Araiza’s appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his request for a continuance and dismissal of his application for cancellation of removal as abandoned. Mr. Araiza petitions this court for review of these decisions. He argues the BIA abused its discretion. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny Mr. Araiza’s petition for review. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. 1 I. BACKGROUND Initiation of Removal Proceedings Mr. Araiza, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 2000 without being lawfully admitted and was later convicted of various crimes. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) detained Mr. Araiza due to these convictions. DHS served Mr. Araiza with a notice to appear (“NTA”) charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”). Removal proceedings began in September 2011. When neither Mr. Araiza nor his counsel, Kent Felty, appeared at the August 2012 hearing, the immigration judge (“IJ”) entered an in absentia removal order. Mr. Araiza, through Mr. Felty, filed a notice of appeal to reopen, requested and received a continuance, and moved to appoint new counsel. His new counsel, Amado Cruz and Byung Kim, requested suspension of the IJ’s in absentia removal order because Mr. Felty had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA agreed, vacated the removal order, and remanded. Post-Remand Proceedings a. Pre-merits hearing In December 2013, Mr. Araiza appeared at his next hearing with his new counsel, Jonathon Shaw, who asked for and received a continuance to review the NTA. After this review, Mr. Araiza submitted pleadings admitting the NTA’s allegations and conceding removability. In March 2014, the IJ found Mr. Araiza removable. Mr. Araiza then applied for cancellation of removal. 2 In a September 2016 hearing, the IJ scheduled the merits hearing on cancellation for January 30, 2018.1 The IJ expressed concern about the absence of documents supporting Mr. Araiza’s cancellation of removal application, such as a “detailed criminal history chart,” and requested them by December 30, 2017. ROA at 64-65. In July 2017, the IJ granted attorney Cristina Uribe-Reyes’s motion to replace Mr. Shaw as Mr. Araiza’s counsel. On November 22, 2017, the IJ granted Ms. Uribe-Reyes’s November 1, 2017 motion to withdraw and declared the merits hearing would still go forward on January 30, 2018. b. Merits hearing At the January 30, 2018 merits hearing, new counsel John Ritten explained he first ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals