Case: 19-12304 Date Filed: 03/18/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12304 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-510-527 RAYMUNDO GARCIA-FLORES, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 18, 2020) Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12304 Date Filed: 03/18/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Raymundo Garcia-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its decision summarily dismissing his appeal. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Flores’s motion to reconsider, we deny the petition for review. On August 21, 2017, an immigration judge denied Garcia-Flores’s application for cancellation of removal and ordered him removed. 1 Garcia-Flores’s counsel filed a notice of appeal and checked a box stating that he intended to file a separate written brief or statement after filing the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal form contained a warning under the separate-brief-or-statement box that the BIA “may summarily dismiss your appeal if you do not file a brief or statement within the time set in the briefing schedule.” The BIA issued a briefing schedule which stated that Garcia-Flores’s brief was due on or before February 8, 2018. Garcia-Flores’s counsel requested a 21-day filing extension until March 1, 2018, which the BIA granted. 1 Garcia-Flores had been charged with being (1) an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i); (2) an alien, who at the time of application for admission, was not in possession of a valid entry document, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I); and (3) an alien who had been convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admitted committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Garcia-Flores conceded removability as to counts 1 and 2 but contested the third charge, claiming that his conviction was not a CIMT under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). At a subsequent hearing, Garcia-Flores filed for cancellation of removal. 2 Case: 19-12304 Date Filed: 03/18/2020 Page: 3 of 5 On April 27, 2018, the BIA dismissed Garcia-Flores’s appeal because the record did not indicate that he had filed a brief and his notice of appeal did not apprise it of the specific reasons for his appeal. Garcia-Flores’s counsel filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that he filed his brief and a motion to accept a late- filing by mail on April 26, 2018. On May 20, 2019, the BIA denied Garcia- Flores’s motion to reconsider reasoning that “[Garcia-Flores] has not specified any errors of fact or law in our prior decision,” the record did not contain a motion to accept a late-filed brief, and “[t]o the extent that such a motion was filed, it was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals