Klever Pilataxi Tenemaza v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 17-1502 ______________ KLEVER ARMANDO PILATAXI TENEMAZA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A088-219-715) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ______________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 26, 2017 BEFORE: GREENAWAY, JR., COWEN, Circuit Judges and PADOVA, District Judge* (Filed: November 30, 2017) ______________ OPINION** ______________ * The Honorable John R. Padova, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. COWEN, Circuit Judge. Klever Armando Pilataxi Tenemaza petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion for a continuance as well as his application for cancellation of removal. We will dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. I. Pilataxi Tenemaza, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without admission or inspection. Pilataxi Tenemaza (who was represented by counsel) conceded the charge of removability. He also filed an application for cancellation of removal, claiming that his United States citizen son would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship should his father be removed to Ecuador. On March 2, 2012, the merits hearing was scheduled for March 3, 2014. The IJ told counsel to “make every effort to get the majority of the evidence filed, say, a year ahead of time and then if you need to supplement, no problem.” (AR86.) At the merits hearing, Pilataxi Tenemaza asked for an adjournment in order to obtain evidence. The IJ denied the motion in an interlocutory oral decision as well as her subsequent written disposition. The IJ also denied the underlying application for cancellation of removal. The BIA dismissed Pilataxi Tenemaza’s administrative appeal. It specifically agreed with the IJ that Pilataxi Tenemaza failed to demonstrate the good cause required for a continuance. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1240.6. The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s 2 finding that Pilataxi Tenemaza did not show that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his son. Pilataxi Tenemaza submitted a “Petition for Review and Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Relief” (JA3 (emphasis omitted)) as well as a motion for a stay of removal. The government moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. This Court denied the stay motion and referred the dismissal motion to the merits panel. II. We must dismiss the petition for review insofar as Pilataxi Tenemaza challenges the agency’s disposition of his application for cancellation of removal. “We lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, including ‘exceptional and extremely unusual’ hardship determinations.” Patel v. Attorney General, 619 F.3d 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mendez-Moranchel v. ...

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