USCA11 Case: 21-11864 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11864 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ FRANCISCO MATEO DOMINGO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A097-953-560 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11864 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11864 Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Francisco Mateo Domingo challenges the Board of Immi- gration Appeal’s (BIA) refusal to exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen his 2013 deportation proceedings. 1 After careful re- view, we dismiss his petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. Domingo is a native and citizen of Guatemala. In August 1999, he arrived in the United States and has since remained in the United States. In September 2011, following his second arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, the Department of Home- land Security initiated removal proceedings against him. In Octo- ber 2011, an Immigration Judge (IJ) determined Domingo was re- movable. As relief from removal, Domingo filed an application for cancellation of removal as a non-permanent resident. On October 1, 2013, following a hearing, the IJ denied Do- mingo’s cancellation of removal application because Domingo failed to establish that his six-year-old daughter would suffer 1The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) permits a non-citizen to file one motion to reopen removal proceedings. See INA § 240(c)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). Such a motion, known as a statutory motion to reopen, must generally be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative removal order. See INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA also has the authority to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte at any time. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). USCA11 Case: 21-11864 Date Filed: 01/07/2022 Page: 3 of 5 21-11864 Opinion of the Court 3 exceptional and extremely unusual hardship from his removal. Domingo timely appealed to the BIA. In June 2014, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding that Domingo failed to show an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and dismissed his appeal. In July 2014, Domingo timely moved the BIA to reconsider its determination. In October 2014, the BIA denied Domingo’s mo- tion for reconsideration, and Domingo did not seek judicial review. In December 2018, Domingo filed a motion to reopen the BIA’s prior decision because his newborn daughter was diagnosed with a rare condition that could lead to significant and chronic health problems. The BIA construed Domingo’s motion as one that sought “sua sponte reopening of his application based upon new evidence of hardship.” The BIA denied Domingo’s motion, stated that it made no factual findings, and discussed that the med- ical evidence Domingo provided about his newborn daughter’s condition reflected “normal findings.” Domingo timely petitioned this Court for review of the BIA’s order. 2 II. On appeal, Domingo argues that the BIA departed from its established standard …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals