Ramon Jesus Lantes Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-12970 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12970 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A023-216-576 RAMON JESUS LANTES GONZALEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 6, 2018) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-12970 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 2 of 9 Ramon Jesus Lantes Gonzalez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Cuba, was paroled in the United States in 1980 and granted lawful permanent resident status in 1986. In 1995, he pled guilty to, and was convicted of, two counts of delivery and one count of possession of cocaine, in violation of Florida law. The state court sentenced him to 17 months of imprisonment. In 1996, authorities served Gonzalez with an Order to Show Cause, charging him with deportability under Section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), because he had been convicted of both “aggravated felonies” and violations of “controlled substance” laws after his entry into the country. In May 1997, the government moved to pretermit Gonzalez’s anticipated motion for relief under INA § 212(c). After a hearing, in October 1997, the IJ issued an order stating that, on “the basis of [Gonzalez’s] admission,” he had determined that Gonzalez was deportable as charged. After further stating that he had “made no application for relief from deportation,” the IJ ordered that Gonzalez be deported from the United States. Gonzalez did not administratively appeal this 2 Case: 17-12970 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 3 of 9 ruling; instead, less than 90 days later, he moved to reopen and reconsider. The IJ denied his motion to reopen, stating that “[n]o substantial grounds [had] been advanced to warrant its grant.” Gonzalez did not administratively appeal this ruling; rather, he filed a motion for clarification, stating that the IJ’s order did “not appear to rule on or consider” his claim for withholding of deportation. In February 1998, the IJ denied his motion for clarification, noting that the statute precluded him “from applying for political asylum as well as for withholding of deportation.” Gonzalez did not appeal this ruling to the BIA. In 2009, Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, filed a second motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. The IJ denied his motion as both untimely, because it was filed more than 90 days after the final 1997 order, and as number-barred, because an alien is only permitted to file one motion to reopen. Gonzalez again did not administratively appeal this decision. In December 2016, Gonzalez, with the assistance of counsel, filed the present motion “to sua sponte reopen [his] case” based on “exceptional circumstances.” He argued that the IJ, in issuing ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals