NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1524 ___________ CESAR GIOVANI URVINA GALLEGOS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE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. A035-916-181) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 19, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 4, 2021) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM Cesar Giovani Urvina Gallegos, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying two motions to reopen his * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. removal proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, we will deny the petition for review. I. Because we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only the facts necessary for our discussion. Urvina Gallegos, a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1977. After he was convicted of drug offenses in 2004, the Government initiated removal proceedings. In 2007, he received a discretionary grant of relief in the form of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents. In 2014, he was convicted of another drug offense, and in 2018 the Government again initiated removal proceedings. Through counsel, Urvina Gallegos conceded his removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge denied the applications and ordered Urvina Gallegos removed to Ecuador. On September 6, 2019, the BIA affirmed. Urvina Gallegos petitioned for review with this Court, and the petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute. See C.A. No. 19-3190. On November 1, 2019, Urvina Gallegos filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, arguing that his counsel was ineffective. He filed another motion to reopen on January 20, 2020, challenging the issuance of his notice to appear and his detention. On February 13, 2020, the BIA denied the motions, determining that the January 2020 motion was untimely and that the ineffective assistance claims in the November 2019 motion were meritless. This petition for review followed. 2 II. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we have jurisdiction over a petition for review of “the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen a removal proceeding.” Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143, 147 (2015). “We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will not disturb the BIA’s decision ‘unless it is found to be arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’” Liem v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 921 F.3d 388, 395 (3d Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). III. The Government argues, and we agree, that Urvina Gallegos’ opening brief fails to raise any argument regarding the BIA’s denial of his November 2019 and January 2020 motions to reopen. Instead, he reargues his underlying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. Thus, he has failed to preserve any issues …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals