NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-1737 ______________ ARTURO VARGAS LEONOR, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1 : A099-087-586) Immigration Judge: David Cheng ______________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 8, 2019 BEFORE: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Filed: March 20, 2019) ______________ OPINION* ______________ ____________________ *This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Arturo Vargas Leonor has filed a petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (“Petition”), challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)’s decision of March 5, 2018, denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. For the reasons stated below, we will deny the Petition. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Petitioner is a Mexican national who illegally entered the United States in 1998. In 2012, the government initiated removal proceedings against him, during which he conceded his removability. The immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered him removed, and though the IJ granted him the right of voluntary departure, Petitioner did not depart. But on October 5, 2017, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings with an IJ. 1 In the motion, he asserted that he was married and had three children who were United States citizens, one of whom was autistic. He also asserted that there had been an earthquake in his home state of Puebla, Mexico, after he had been ordered removed in 2012, and he and his family would suffer extreme hardship if deported. The IJ denied his motion, and on Petitioner’s appeal the BIA affirmed. 1 The parties do not explain the circumstances surrounding the filing of Petitioner’s motion to reopen, but it seems likely that Petitioner had been arrested and detained by immigration officials pursuant to the final order of removal issued in 2012, which prompted him to file his motion. 2 III. DISCUSSION We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 725 (1992); Fadiga v. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 153 (3d Cir. 2007). “Under the abuse of discretion standard, the Board's decision must be reversed if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Id. at 153 (citation omitted). The BIA denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen on both procedural and substantive grounds. First, it denied the motion because Petitioner failed to attach to the motion an application for relief that formed the basis for the motion to reopen. J.A.2. Second, it denied the motion because the facts of this case did not warrant relief. Id. On appeal, [Petitioner] argues that he established prima facie eligibility for relief in his motion by referencing the ‘grave dangers and extreme hardship’ his family will face in Mexico due to the escalating crime rate and devastation caused by the earthquake in the state ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals