Appellate Case: 19-9615 Document: 010110613259 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 2, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ EDGAR TARANGO-DELGADO, a/k/a Armondo De Santiago, Petitioner, Nos. 19-9615 & 20-9619 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________________ Stephen Petrany of Jones Day, Washington D.C. (Brittney Lane Kubisch of Jones Day, Los Angeles, California; Ryan Proctor of Jones Day, Washington D.C.; Nicole C. Henning of Jones Day, Chicago, Illinois; Charles Roth of National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, on the briefs) for Petitioner-Appellant. Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation (Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney, General Civil Division; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice with him on the brief), Washington D.C., for Respondent-Appellee. _________________________________ Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Appellate Case: 19-9615 Document: 010110613259 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 2 Petitioner Edgar Tarango-Delgado appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his two motions to reopen his removal proceedings. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) bars Tarango-Delgado from such relief, we affirm. BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Tarango-Delgado, a citizen of Mexico, came to the United States in 1977, when he was seven months old. He became a lawful permanent resident at age ten. And for almost four decades, he lived in this country with his parents, siblings, wife, and children—all of whom are now U.S. citizens. In 2015, state police arrested Tarango-Delgado and charged him with aggravated animal cruelty, a felony. He pleaded guilty to that charge. But, before entering his plea, his counsel failed to advise him that pleading guilty would have deportation consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Those consequences arose because aggravated animal cruelty is a crime of moral turpitude.1 A few months after he pleaded guilty, the government commenced removal proceedings against him. II. Procedural Background To challenge his removal, Tarango-Delgado took two actions. First, he moved for post-conviction relief in Colorado state court, arguing that his counsel had 1 In 1997, Tarango-Delgado was convicted of second-degree burglary in Colorado state court. This burglary conviction counted as his first qualifying crime of moral turpitude. 2 Appellate Case: 19-9615 Document: 010110613259 Date Filed: 12/02/2021 Page: 3 provided ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment by not advising him of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea and conviction. FAR at 216–25 (relying on Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010)). Second, he applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) before an immigration judge (“IJ”).2 In October 2017, with the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel motion still pending, an IJ denied Tarango-Delgado’s motion for cancellation of removal. Tarango-Delgado didn’t appeal the IJ’s decision, and he was removed to Mexico in November 2017. Almost a year after his removal, a Colorado state court ruled on Tarango- Delgado’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel motion. Unsurprisingly, that court …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals