FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JUAN FRANCISCO MACIAS-GUERRERO, Petitioner, No. 19-9514 v. (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Juan Francisco Macias-Guerrero, a native and citizen of Mexico, was apprehended in this country shortly after illegally crossing the border near Santa Teresa, New Mexico. He was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and was placed in expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Because Mr. Macias-Guerrero expressed a fear of persecution * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. if he was returned to Mexico, he was given a credible-fear interview. The asylum officer determined that Mr. Macias-Guerrero did not establish a credible fear of persecution and that there was not a significant possibility that he would be eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. He requested review by an immigration judge (IJ), who affirmed the asylum officer’s decision. Mr. Macias-Guerrero then filed a petition for review in this court. In its appellate brief the government contends that we lack jurisdiction, and Mr. Macias- Guerrero has filed no reply brief in response. We agree with the government and therefore dismiss the petition without reaching the merits. “The party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court must demonstrate that the case is within the court’s jurisdiction. The facts supporting jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged, and if challenged, the burden is on the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Bustillos, 31 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4)(B) (appellant’s brief must provide a jurisdictional statement that includes “the basis for the court of appeals’ jurisdiction, with citations to applicable statutory provisions”). Mr. Macias-Guerrero’s opening brief states that this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (a)(2)(D). In the circumstances of this proceeding, however, neither of these provisions allows this court to review the IJ’s order. Under § 1252(a)(1) we generally have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal. Crucially, however, the order in this case was an expedited removal order 2 issued under § 1225(b)(1), and § 1252(a)(1) expressly does not apply to “order[s] of removal without a hearing pursuant to section 1225(b)(1) of this title.” In addition, § 1252(a)(2)(A), which is entitled “Review relating to section 1225(b)(1),” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals