FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 5, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE MOLINA DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9574 (Petition for Review) MERRICK GARLAND, United States Attorney General,* Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.*** _________________________________ Jose Molina Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) dismissal of his Motion to Reconsider. We lack jurisdiction to consider his petition for review. * In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Merrick Garland is substituted for Jeffrey A. Rosen, as the respondent in this action. ** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. *** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. BACKGROUND Molina Dominguez remained in the United States without authorization after his border crossing card expired. So the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. In April 2019, Molina Dominguez sought cancellation of his removal, or, in the alternative, voluntary departure. At a September 2019 hearing, an immigration judge granted his request for voluntary departure but denied his application for cancellation of removal after finding that Molina Dominguez had failed to meet the continuous-physical-presence requirement. Molina Dominguez had thirty days to file a notice of appeal, that is, until October 24, 2019. But he missed the deadline. The BIA received his filing on November 13, 2019. In his Notice of Appeal, he acknowledged being untimely and moved for the BIA to accept his untimely appeal. As his excuse, Molina Dominguez blamed his delay on needing time to obtain the filing fee, after which his attorney worked quickly to file the notice of appeal. In January 2020, the BIA summarily dismissed his appeal as untimely and denied his “request that the appeal be taken as timely.” Admin. R. at 22. The record reflects that he didn’t seek judicial review of this order. Instead, in February 2020, Molina Dominguez filed a motion with the BIA to reconsider. He argued that the BIA had failed to consider his motion or explain its denial of his appeal. Molina Dominguez again blamed his financial issues for his untimely filing. In June 2020, the BIA denied his motion for reconsideration. In so doing, it noted that Molina Dominguez’s asserted problems raising funds for the 2 filing fee neither sufficed to grant his motion nor qualified as an “extraordinary event” warranting that the appeal proceed on certification. Id. at 3 (citing In re Liadov, 23 I. & …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals