Case: 19-12365 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12365 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A95-089-461 EDITH FUNEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 1, 2020) Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12365 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Edith Funez, a Honduran citizen, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Funez argues that the BIA erred when it refused to reopen her proceedings sua sponte based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). After careful review, we dismiss her petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. I. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Funez with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging her as removable and ordering her to appear before an immigration judge (“IJ”) “on a date to be set at a time to be set.” AR at 769.1 Nearly a month later, DHS served Funez with a “Notice of Hearing in Removal Proceedings,” which stated that her removal hearing would be held on February 3, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. in Miami. Id. at 768. She appeared before the IJ and conceded removability. Funez applied for cancellation of removal. At a hearing on her application, Funez testified that she entered the United States on October 2, 1997 but returned to Honduras in February 1998. She returned to the United States in October 1999. When the IJ asked about documents indicating that she had been present in the United States between February 1998 and October 1999, Funez testified that she 1 “AR” refers to the administrative record. 2 Case: 19-12365 Date Filed: 05/01/2020 Page: 3 of 8 was not sure where those documents had come from, as they appeared to have come from a third party. She further testified that her daughter suffered from a hernia and allergies, and her daughter’s medical needs would be too expensive to care for in Honduras. The IJ denied Funez’s application for cancellation of removal, concluding that Funez had failed to show that her daughter’s medical needs were an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Funez appealed, and the BIA remanded the case to the IJ for reconsideration of whether Funez’s daughter would suffer if Funez were removed to Honduras. On remand, the IJ again denied her application. This time, the IJ found that Funez had failed to demonstrate continuous physical presence in the United States for the purposes of cancellation of removal. Funez appealed to the BIA, which affirmed. Over two years later, Funez filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). She first argued that the BIA should reopen her case and remand to the IJ for rehearing because the IJ previously had erred in finding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals