FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 30, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court HECTOR EMILIANO PORTILLO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, No. 19-9584 (Petition for Review) v. WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Hector Emiliano Portillo Martinez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Mr. Portillo Martinez further asks us to impose sanctions on the government. We deny his request for sanctions, but we remand this matter to the BIA to consider * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Mr. Portillo Martinez’s motion, without reliance on precedent that is no longer valid in this circuit. I. BACKGROUND On March 22, 2005, within days of entering the United States without inspection, Mr. Portillo Martinez was served with a notice to appear charging him as removable. As was common in that era, Mr. Portillo Martinez’s notice to appear did not contain the time and date of his removal hearing. Mr. Portillo Martinez’s hearing was subsequently scheduled for July 13, 2005, in San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Portillo Martinez did not attend that hearing, and, as a result, he was ordered removed in absentia. On January 14, 2008, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Mr. Portillo Martinez’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings, finding Mr. Portillo Martinez had established he did not “receive notice of his [2005] hearing through no fault of his own.” AR at 142–43. On April 7, 2010, the IJ granted Mr. Portillo Martinez permission to voluntarily depart the United States prior to the completion of his removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a). Mr. Portillo Martinez agreed to depart by August 5, 2010, and the IJ entered an alternate order of removal that became effective if Mr. Portillo Martinez failed to depart by that date. Mr. Portillo Martinez did not depart the United States, and, in September of 2018, he filed a motion to again reopen his removal proceedings. Among other things, Mr. Portillo Martinez argued the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), rendered him prima facie eligible for cancellation 2 of removal, and that any procedural barriers to that relief should be excused on equitable grounds. On October 4, 2018, the IJ denied the motion, concluding it was defective on both procedural and substantive grounds. Mr. Portillo Martinez appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals