NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-2021 ___________ JOHAN ANTONIO TINEO MOYA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A056-122-362) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 10, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 15, 2023) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se petitioner Johan Tineo Moya, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, has filed a petition for review challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion for reconsideration. For the reasons detailed below, we will deny the petition. This case has a protracted procedural history. In 2017, Moya was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for violating a law relating to a controlled substance and under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having been convicted of an aggravated felony (illicit trafficking in a controlled substance). Both charges concerned his 2009 conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-7. The Immigration Judge (IJ) ruled that Moya’s conviction was not an aggravated felony, but sustained the removal charge for violating a law relating to a controlled substance. The IJ also granted Moya’s application for cancellation of removal. However, the Government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated that order, concluding that Moya’s conviction did qualify as an aggravated felony that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. On remand, the IJ denied Moya’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the BIA affirmed. Moya filed a counseled petition for review. See C.A. No. 19-1023. During the pendency of those proceedings, this Court issued an opinion in Rosa v. Attorney General, 950 F.3d 67 (3d Cir. 2020), which called into question the BIA’s ruling that Moya’s crime was an 2 aggravated felony. The Government then filed a motion to remand the case back to the BIA, which we granted. On remand, the BIA determined that Moya’s conviction was not an aggravated felony. However, it ruled that Moya was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he did not have seven years of continuous residence in the United States as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The BIA explained that Moya had committed his drug offense before he had resided here for seven years and that this stopped his period of continuous residence.1 The BIA also ruled that Moya was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Moya did not file a petition for review. Instead, he asked the BIA, through counsel, to reconsider its decision. The BIA denied the motion, concluding that Moya had not shown any error in its prior decision. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals