Appellate Case: 21-9537 Document: 010110658710 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 17, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PANFILO CASTELAN-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. No. 21-9537 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Panfilo Castelan-Cruz petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 21-9537 Document: 010110658710 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 2 BACKGROUND Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served him with a Notice to Appear (NTA) on August 3, 2015. The NTA charged him with removability as a noncitizen present without admission or parole, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and required him to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) in an Aurora Immigration court on “a date to be set” at “a time to be set.” R. at 206. The immigration court later issued a notice of hearing specifying a date and time for the appearance in August 2015. Petitioner appeared at this hearing, admitted the facts in the NTA other than the alleged arrival date (the NTA asserted he arrived in August 2015, but Petitioner asserted he arrived in June 2004), and admitted to his removability as charged. The IJ therefore found DHS had established Petitioner’s removability by clear and convincing evidence. At a second hearing in September 2015, Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). At a third hearing, this time in a Denver immigration court, Petitioner requested that the IJ set his application for cancellation of removal for a merits hearing. The IJ set the merits hearing for October 5, 2018. Before the merits hearing, the Supreme Court decided Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioner then filed a motion to terminate proceedings in which he argued that, under Pereira, because his NTA did not specify a date certain for the first hearing before the IJ, the immigration court lacked jurisdiction and could not continue the removal proceedings. The IJ denied the motion, concluding, based 2 Appellate Case: 21-9537 Document: 010110658710 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 3 on Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441, 447 (B.I.A. 2018), …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals