NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-2440 _____________ PAUL HYACINTH ESTANIO, AKA Paul H. Estanio, AKA Paul Estanir, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A088-447-203) Immigration Judge: Hon. Margaret Reichenberg _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 16, 2020 Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. (Filed: November 23, 2020) _______________ OPINION * _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Paul Estanio seeks judicial review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) declining to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision and will dismiss the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Estanio is a native and citizen of Saint Lucia. He entered the United States without inspection on July 1, 2001. A dozen years later, on April 5, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued Estanio a Notice to Appear charging him with removability, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Through his counsel, Estanio conceded removability and sought relief in the form of cancellation of removal, which the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) declined to give. The BIA affirmed. Estanio then filed a timely petition for review, which we dismissed after he withdrew his petition. Though a removal order had been entered, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) did not remove Estanio and instead permitted him to remain in the United States under the supervision of a deportation officer. After the removal order was already in place, Estanio married his wife, who is a United States citizen. She filed an I-130 relative petition on his behalf, which was approved. Following the approval of his I-130 petition, Estanio obtained an “immediately available” visa number. See 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). According to Estanio, upon receipt of his “immediately available” 2 visa number, he qualified to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).1 Estanio filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings, attaching his application for adjustment of status. He asked the BIA to exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings and remand to the IJ for adjudication of his application for relief from removal. The DHS did not file an opposition to Estanio’s motion, but the BIA denied his motion as untimely 2 and held, in pertinent part, that he 1 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1), “an alien physically present in the United States” who “entered the United States without inspection” may apply for lawful permanent residence status if the alien is a beneficiary of an I-130 filed on or before April 30, 2001. Upon receipt of that application, “the Attorney ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals