Appellate Case: 20-9629 Document: 010110613175 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 2, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CRISTOBAL NUNEZ-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9629 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Cristobal Nunez-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his third motion to reopen his proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny the petition. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 20-9629 Document: 010110613175 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 2 BACKGROUND On March 23, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Nunez-Robles with a notice to appear (“NTA”), alleging he unlawfully entered the United States in 1995 and ordering him to appear before an immigration judge (“IJ”) at the detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, “on March 23, 2012, at 12:00 a.m.” Admin. R. Vol. 2 at 613. Nunez-Robles signed the NTA and acknowledged service. He also signed under the section titled “Request for Prompt Hearing,” which stated: “To expedite a determination in my case, I request an immediate hearing. I waive my right to a 10-day period prior to appearing before an immigration judge.” Id. at 614. On March 28, DHS filed the NTA with the Immigration Court and Nunez-Robles’s counsel filed a notice of appearance. DHS also served Nunez-Robles with a notice of hearing, stating his case was scheduled for a master hearing the following morning on March 29 at 9:00 a.m. According to Nunez-Robles, his counsel appeared at that hearing, and the matter was continued for counsel to “become prepared.” Pet’r’s Br. at 34. At the next hearing on June 28, 2012, Nunez-Robles’s counsel admitted the factual allegations in the NTA and indicated Nunez-Robles was seeking cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Additional hearings were held on November 6, 2013, April 17, 2014, December 18, 2014, and December 31, 2014. At each hearing, Nunez-Robles was represented by counsel. Ultimately, the IJ denied Nunez-Robles’s application for cancellation of removal, and the BIA upheld that decision. Nunez-Robles separately moved to 2 Appellate Case: 20-9629 Document: 010110613175 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 3 reopen his proceedings, and the BIA denied the motion. He sought review in this court, and after consolidating the matters, we upheld the BIA’s rulings and dismissed as unexhausted a due …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals