Francisco Naula-Leon v. Attorney General United States of America

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 22-1539 _____________ FRANCISCO NAULA-LEON Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A076-571-209) ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 11, 2023 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 1, 2023) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Chief Judge. Francisco Naula-Leon moved the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to reopen decades-old removal proceedings against him so that he could apply for cancellation of that removal. The BIA denied the motion and also declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen those proceedings. Naula-Leon now petitions us to reopen his removal proceedings and remand his case to the BIA. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the challenged aspects of the BIA decision, we will dismiss Naula-Leon’s petition for review. I. We write solely for the parties and so recite only the facts necessary to our disposition. Naula-Leon is a native and citizen of Ecuador, who entered the United States without inspection in 1994. In 1997, a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was filed against him, commencing removal proceedings. He applied for, and was granted, voluntary departure, but he did not leave the United States as promised. Naula-Leon subsequently stayed in the United States for the next two decades. Beginning in late 2018, he filed multiple motions to reopen his removal proceedings with the Newark Immigration Court arguing that his 1997 NTA was deficient – and thus required reopening – because it did not designate the time and place of his removal hearing. He also argued that he was eligible for cancellation of removal based on the length of his stay in the United States, his good moral character, lack of a criminal record, and the hardship his removal would impose on his spouse and four children (all of whom are United States citizens). In particular, he noted that one of his children has special 2 needs and would be particularly impacted by his removal. The Immigration Court denied these motions. Naula-Leon appealed to the BIA, reiterating his prior claims that his NTA had been deficient, that his case should be reopened, and that he was eligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial. Naula-Leon moved the BIA to reconsider, which the BIA denied. To this end, the BIA determined that even “assuming [Petitioner] can demonstrate the requisite continuous physical presence, he has not established a reasonable likelihood he can satisfy all the statutory requirements for cancellation of removal, including exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative.” Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 3. The BIA also denied Naula-Leon’s request that it exercise its sua sponte authority to allow him to apply for cancellation for removal. This petition for review followed. II. This Court generally has …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals