FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 10, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSE G. RAMOS, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9549 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HOLMES, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Petitioner Jose G. Ramos,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny Mr. Ramos’s 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 We note that the petitioner also refers to himself as Jose Ramos Perdomo. I. Background Mr. Ramos entered this country without inspection in September 1993. He states that he then left the United States and returned to El Salvador for a brief period of time from September 2001 to November 2001. On November 3, 2001, Mr. Ramos was paroled into this country.2 In February 2005, Mr. Ramos was served with a Notice to Appear (NTA). The NTA charged Mr. Ramos with being removable for remaining in this country after the expiration of his parole period without possessing a valid entry document. The NTA informed him of the location of his hearing, but it did not include the date or time of his hearing. He was later mailed a Notice of Hearing containing that information. Mr. Ramos appeared for an initial Master Calendar hearing on April 21, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was reset to May 19, 2005, but Mr. Ramos did not appear at that hearing. As a result of his failure to appear, the Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Mr. Ramos removed in absentia that same day. Mr. Ramos then filed a pro se motion to reopen on May 31, 2005, but the IJ denied 2 “The Attorney General may . . . in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals