ALD-141 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2250 ___________ CARLOS ALBERTO ERAZO-CABALLERO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A098-985-941) Immigration Judge: Honorable Annie S. Garcy ____________________________________ Submitted on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, in Part for Lack of Jurisdiction, and for Summary Action in Part Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 March 12, 2020 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 29, 2020) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Carlos Erazo-Caballero (Erazo) seeks review of an order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Government has moved to dismiss in part, and summarily deny in part, the petition for review. We will grant the motion. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Erazo is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without permission in May 2005, at the age of sixteen, and was placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Division of Unaccompanied Children Services. The Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him as removable as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The NTA did not contain the date and time of the hearing; however, a subsequent notice of hearing contained the information. Erazo appeared at several hearings before an immigration judge (IJ) and, through counsel, filed pleadings admitting the factual allegations in the NTA and conceding removability. 1 Erazo failed to appear at a scheduled removal hearing in February 2006, and the IJ ordered him removed in absentia. In 2011, after he was detained by immigration officers, Erazo filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The IJ granted the motion and, after several continuances, determined that Erazo had abandoned all applications for relief and ordered him removed. On appeal, the Board reversed and remanded after determining that his 1 In August 2005, Erazo bonded out into the custody of his father. 2 counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file his application for relief. Erazo failed to appear at the removal hearing on remand in October 2014; his counsel indicated that Erazo had not kept in contact with him. For the second time, the IJ ordered Erazo removed in absentia. Three years later, in 2017, Erazo filed a motion to reopen with the IJ based on changed country conditions. The IJ denied the motion and, in a July 2, 2018 decision, the Board affirmed without opinion. On October 24, 2018, Erazo filed a motion to reconsider with the Board arguing, for the first time, that because the initial NTA did not state a definite time and date to appear, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals