FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 19, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9592 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Enrique Dominguez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part. On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. I. Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1981. In 1996 he pleaded guilty in state court to possession of a controlled substance. In 1998 the former Immigration and Nationalization Service, now the Department of Homeland Security, charged him as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). In September 1998 an immigration judge (IJ) ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. He waived his right to appeal. After he was removed, he returned to the U.S. illegally and his removal order was reinstated. But he illegally reentered again after the second removal and he was removed a third time. Then, in 2015—some 17 years after the 1998 removal order—Petitioner filed with the IJ a motion to reopen, claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel and seeking a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.1 An IJ denied the motion on multiple grounds. In 2017 the Board agreed with the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. We 1 Section 212(c) of the INA was codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). It gave the Attorney General discretion “to grant waivers from removal to deportable aliens who were long-time lawful residents of the United States and met other eligibility criteria.” Sosa-Valenzuela v. Holder, 692 F.3d 1103, 1107 (10th Cir. 2012). As pertinent here, it authorized discretionary waivers for certain noncitizens who were removable based on certain types of convictions obtained by guilty pleas entered before April 1, 1997. See id. at 1108. Congress enacted legislation in 1996 that reduced the class of noncitizens eligible for such waivers, and later that year it repealed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals