FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 24, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ CRISTOBAL NUNEZ-ROBLES, a/k/a FIDEL NUNEZ-MUNIZ, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9514 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, EBEL, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Cristobal Nunez-Robles, a citizen of Mexico found unlawfully in the United States, challenges his administrative removal proceeding in two ways. First, relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Nunez-Robles argues for the first time that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in his case—the document that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) uses to initiate removal proceedings— was defective and, therefore, the immigration judge (“IJ”) never acquired jurisdiction * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. over these removal proceedings. Because Nunez-Robles never raised this issue to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is unexhausted and we, therefore, lack jurisdiction to consider this question. Second, because Nunez-Robles’s Pereira argument does not raise any substantial concerns about our own jurisdiction here, we turn to his petition for review, which is otherwise properly before us. In that petition, Nunez-Robles challenges the BIA’s decision to deny his second motion to reopen his removal proceeding. Nunez-Robles based that motion on newly discovered evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico. We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this motion to reopen. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we, therefore, DENY the petition for review and, to the extent Nunez-Robles asserts an unexhausted Pereira issue, we DISMISS that argument for lack of jurisdiction. 1 I. BACKGROUND Nunez-Robles is a Mexican citizen found unlawfully in the United States. As a result, DHS detained him briefly in March 2012, released him on a cash bond, and initiated removal proceedings against him. During those proceedings, Nunez-Robles conceded that he was removable but applied for discretionary cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The IJ ruled that Nunez-Robles was not eligible for 1 We DENY the motion by the Retired Immigration Judges and Former Members of the BIA to file an amicus brief addressing the Pereira issue since we are not addressing that issue. 2 that discretionary relief because he was unable to prove that none of his several criminal convictions was for a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (addressing eligibility for cancellation of removal). The BIA upheld the IJ’s determination, and also denied Nunez-Robles’ first motion to reopen his removal proceedings. This court upheld both BIA decisions. See Nunez-Robles v. Sessions, 722 F. App’x 756 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). Nunez-Robles then filed the motion at issue here, a second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. “Ordinarily, a noncitizen ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals