NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0066n.06 No. 18-4263 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 29, 2020 MARICELA QUIROZ DE MORALES, Miroslava ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Trejo Mata, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES v. ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. ) BEFORE: GUY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. During her removal proceedings in immigration court, petitioner’s prior counsel conceded that petitioner was an arriving alien and that she was removable pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Petitioner seeks to negate those concessions. We deny her petition because she has not demonstrated egregious circumstances. I. In 1998, petitioner Maricela De Morales—who was not a citizen or a national of the United States—attempted to enter the United States. She was, however, apprehended and removed pursuant to an expedited order of removal. At some point after her removal, De Morales returned to the United States, and in 2004, had her status adjusted to lawful permanent resident, but failed to disclose to the government that she had been the subject of an expedited removal. In 2014, No. 18-4263, DeMorales v. Barr petitioner again attempted to enter the United States. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Homeland Security) served her with a Notice to Appear. DHS made seven allegations against De Morales: 1. You are not a citizen or national of the United States; 2. You are a native of Mexico and a citizen of Mexico; 3. You were removed under the following; Port of Entry, Hidalgo, Texas, on or about November 11, 1998 as Miroslava Trejo Mata, DOB: May 10, 1966, A077-446-784; 4. You adjusted status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident Alien, on or about June[ ] 15, 2004, in Memphis, Tennessee, but you failed to disclose to the United States Government your prior expedited removal; 5. You applied for admission into the United States on Sunday, December 28, 2014, at the Laredo, Texas, Port of Entry; 6. You procured by fraud or willful misrepresentation your immigrant visa when you failed to disclose to the U.S. Government that you had previously been removed from the United States under such identity; 7. You are an immigrant not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa or other valid entry document required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.1 Based on these allegations, Homeland Security charged petitioner as inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (not in possession of valid documentation).2 During the proceedings before the Immigration Judge (IJ), petitioner—through her prior counsel—made two concessions that are central to this appeal. First, she conceded that she was an arriving alien (as opposed to a lawful permanent resident). Second, petitioner conceded that she was inadmissible under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). After multiple hearings, the IJ ordered petitioner’s removal based on 1 Petitioner admitted allegations one, two, three, five, and seven, but denied allegations four and six. 2 DHS charged ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals