FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 26, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOE RICHARD ARTUR, a/k/a Joe Richard Arthur, Petitioner. v. No. 19-9537 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HOLMES, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Joe Richard Artur, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of a final order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. In that motion, he asserted that his case merited sua sponte reopening based on a fundamental change in the law due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). He argued that, after the Pereira decision, he was * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. eligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal, which had been previously unavailable to him. The BIA denied his motion, relying on its decision in In re Mendoza-Hernandez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2019), to conclude that Mr. Artur was not prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. I. Background Mr. Artur was admitted to the United States on June 30, 2004, as a nonimmigrant visitor and remained in this country without authorization after his visa expired. He was issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) on June 13, 2011. The NTA did not specify the time or place of his initial removal hearing. He was subsequently issued a Notice of Hearing (NOH) a few days later that did specify the time and place of his hearing. Mr. Artur applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all forms of relief and the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision. This court dismissed in part and denied in part Mr. Artur’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision. See Artur v. Holder, 572 F. App’x 592, 593 (10th Cir. 2014). Although he was subject to a final order of removal, Mr. Artur continued to live in the United States. In January 2019, he filed his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on Pereira.1 In Pereira, the Supreme Court held that a NTA that 1 Mr. Artur also filed a motion to stay his removal pending the BIA’s consideration of his motion to reopen. The BIA denied his request for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals