FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 17, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ ALONSO MARTINEZ-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9573 WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. _________________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________________ Mark R. Barr, Lichter Immigration, Denver, Colorado, appearing for Petitioner. Lynda A. Do, Office of Immigration Litigation (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, with her on the brief), Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia, appearing for Respondent. _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Alonso Martinez-Perez (Petitioner) has filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, holding that neither the BIA nor the Immigration Court had jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, vacate the order of the BIA dismissing Petitioner’s appeal, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. I Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. Certified Administrative Record (CAR) at 63. He entered the United States in 2001, without being inspected and admitted or paroled. Id. On April 9, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged him as removable from the United States pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Id. Immigration officials served Petitioner with a notice to appear. Id. The notice to appear did not include a date and time for his hearing. Id. at 408. One week later, Petitioner received notice of the date and time of his hearing in a separate document. Id. at 407. On May 5, 2010, Petitioner, through counsel, admitted the allegations contained in the notice to appear and conceded the charge of removability.1 Id. at 63. The Immigration Judge found Petitioner removable. Id. On July 7, 2011, Petitioner filed his application for cancellation of removal. Id. The Attorney General may, in pertinent part, cancel removal when “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s . . . child, 1 Petitioner’s May 5, 2010 hearing was initially scheduled for August 19, 2009. CAR at 69. It was rescheduled after Petitioner requested a “brief continuance.” Id. 2 who is a citizen of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). “The term ‘child’ means an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age.” Id. § 1101(b)(1). Petitioner’s qualifying relative was his daughter, who was sixteen years old when Petitioner filed his application for cancellation of removal. CAR at 213. The hearing on Petitioner’s application was initially scheduled for July 22, 2011, but the Immigration Court subsequently rescheduled the hearing on its ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals