In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2290 & 18-3298 JIRI VYLOHA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A099-025-839 ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 4, 2019 — DECIDED JULY 10, 2019 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Jiri Vyloha, a citizen of the Czech Republic, brings two petitions for judicial review in this con- solidated appeal. About ten years after an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Vyloha removed in absentia in 2007, Vylo- ha moved to rescind the order and reopen his case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). An IJ denied that motion and the subsequent motion to reconsider, and we conclude that the 2 Nos. 18-2290 & 18-3298 Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ. We thus deny Vyloha’s first petition for re- view. Vyloha also seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision rejecting his subject-matter jurisdiction argument based on the Supreme Court’s June 2018 decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Because Vyloha’s argument is fore- closed by our recent decision in Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019), we also deny his second petition for review.1 I Vyloha entered the United States in 1998 as a non- immigrant visitor and overstayed his visa. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was alerted to Vyloha’s presence in the United States in June 2006 after he was convicted of driving under the influence in Illinois. In August 2006, DHS served Vyloha in person with a Notice to Appear (Notice), which indicated that he would be ordered to appear before an IJ in Chicago on a date and time to be set in the future. The Notice charged Vyloha with removability because he overstayed his non-immigrant visa. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Two days later, a notice of hearing was mailed to Vylo- ha’s attorney setting the hearing date for August 21, 2006. Several other hearing notices followed. On October 13, 2006, Vyloha appeared before the IJ in person for his scheduled 1 Vyloha does not seek judicial review of the Board’s sua sponte deci- sions, most likely because sua sponte decisions are unreviewable unless the Board makes a constitutional or legal error. Fuller v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 514, 519 (7th Cir. 2019). Nos. 18-2290 & 18-3298 3 removal hearing and presented a letter from his counsel ex- plaining that he was out of the country and requesting that the IJ reschedule the matter to November 2006. At the Octo- ber 2006 hearing, Vyloha indicated that he preferred to pro- ceed in English. After confirming that Vyloha was comforta- ble proceeding in English, the IJ conducted the hearing and personally served Vyloha with notice that his rescheduled removal hearing was set for May 2007. In addition, the IJ orally informed Vyloha of the hearing’s time and warned him about ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals