USCA11 Case: 20-11501 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11501 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-192-832 HUGO ISLAS-ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 13, 2021) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, MARTIN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-11501 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 2 of 6 Hugo Islas-Enriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the denial of his motion to reconsider an order affirming the denial of his motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6). Islas-Enriquez also moves for a summary reversal of the denial of his motion to reconsider. Islas-Enriquez’s motion to reopen was untimely and he did not challenge that finding on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Because Islas-Enriquez failed to identify error in the denial of his motion to reconsider, we deny both his petition for review and his motion for summary reversal. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security charged Islas-Enriquez as inadmissible for entering the United States at an unknown time and place without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. Islas-Enriquez conceded that he was inadmissible and applied for cancellation of removal, id. § 1229b(b). In November 2017, an immigration judge ruled that Islas-Enriquez was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had not resided in the country continuously for ten years. Islas-Enriquez did not appeal the decision. Over a year later, in February 2019, Islas-Enriquez moved to reopen his removal proceedings based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), but the immigration judge found that the motion was “more than one (1) year untimely” and that Islas-Enriquez “failed to establish that he was prima facie eligible for relief.” The immigration judge determined that a notice to appear that the 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11501 Date Filed: 07/13/2021 Page: 3 of 6 Department mailed Islas-Enriquez on February 4, 2014, “triggered the stop-time rule,” Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2110, by stating that he was scheduled to appear before an Immigration Judge on April 21, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. at 180 Spring St. SW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. And the immigration judge explained that Islas- Enriquez’s “claim[] that he entered the United States in April of 2004[ was] approximately two (2) months too late to meet the ten (10) year continuous presence requirement.” Because the immigration judge was “not convinced that exceptional circumstances [had] been established in [the] case” to except Islas- Enriquez from the one-year deadline to file a motion to reopen,” “no sua sponte basis [existed] upon which to reopen [his] case.” Islas-Enriquez appealed to the Board. He argued that his notice to appear was defective, that his removal to Mexico would cause his seven children extreme and unusual hardship and deny him treatment for his severe reactive arthritis, and that the Board should sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. But Islas- …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals