FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 9, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court MARIO SALVADOR SORIANO- MENDOSA, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9535 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Mario Salvador Soriano-Mendosa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision that upheld the denial of his In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, William P. Barr is substituted for Jefferson B. Sessions, III, as the respondent in this action. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. motion to reopen immigration proceedings and rescind his removal order. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny Soriano’s petition. BACKGROUND Soriano entered the United States illegally on April 7, 2009, when he was seventeen years old. The Department of Homeland Security quickly apprehended him and began removal proceedings by filing a notice to appear and a notice of hearing. Because he was an unaccompanied minor, he was released to his uncle, who lived in Utah. On May 26, 2011, Soriano appeared with attorney Scott T. Poston before an Immigration Judge (IJ) and was notified that his case was set for a removal hearing to be conducted at 1 p.m. on September 29, 2011, in Salt Lake City, Utah.1 When Soriano failed to appear, the IJ conducted the hearing in absentia, found him removable as charged, and ordered him removed to El Salvador. Over five-and-a-half years later, on May 24, 2017, Soriano filed a motion through new counsel to reopen the immigration proceedings and rescind the removal order. Soriano argued that Poston had provided ineffective assistance by “not inform[ing] [him] of [the] September 29, 2011[,] calendar hearing until the morning of the scheduled hearing,” when he was in California. R. at 713. According to Soriano, he could not travel to Utah on such short notice. Soriano indicated he learned of the removal order’s 1 At the May 26 hearing, Soriano “received oral notice of” the September 29 hearing, R. at 605, and Poston received written notice, id. at 862-63. 2 entry sometime “[a]fter the hearing in September of 2011,” but no later than “July of 2012,” when he was told by another attorney that “it would be very difficult to fight [the] removal order.” Id. at 745. In addition to complaining of Poston’s failure to secure his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals