United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1973 EDGAR ROLANDO TAY-CHAN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,* Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Lynch, Thompson, and Barron, Circuit Judges. Stanley H. Cooper on brief for petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, and Andrea N. Gevas, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for respondent. * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), William P. Barr has been substituted for former Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker as the respondent. March 13, 2019 - 2 - THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. We find ourselves explaining once again that "[m]otions to reopen -- especially untimely motions to reopen -- are disfavored in immigration cases. Consequently, an alien who seeks to reopen removal proceedings out of time ordinarily faces a steep uphill climb." Pineda v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 836, 838 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46, 48 (1st Cir. 2018)). In today's case, that demanding hike is attempted by petitioner Edgar Rolando Tay-Chan ("Tay-Chan"), a Guatemalan native and citizen who first came to the U.S. in 2003.1 He was later charged with removability, and now, with his immigration proceedings not going the way he had hoped, Tay-Chan challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") denial of the motion to reopen that he filed nearly seven years late. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in so doing, we uphold the BIA's rejection of the motion to reopen and deny Tay-Chan's petition for judicial review. BACKGROUND Tay-Chan was born in Guatemala City, Guatemala in 1978, where he received a fourth-grade education while living in a 1There's some debate as to whether Tay-Chan entered the U.S. in 2003 or 2004. The government and the notice to appear list his date of entry as August 2004, but Tay-Chan has repeatedly stated that it was the summer of 2003. The precise date of entry having no bearing on our analysis of the issues presented on appeal, we assume it was 2003. - 3 - violent neighborhood overrun by gangs. In need of a job to help support his impoverished family, an eleven-year-old Tay-Chan left school and began working at a local autobody shop, which, as it turns out, was heavily involved in the neighborhood's criminal activity. When Tay-Chan was fifteen, a member of MS-18 sought to recruit Tay-Chan; in response, Tay-Chan tried to avoid any interactions with members of MS-18. Unfortunately, this approach didn't pan out long-term: Tay-Chan was later shot five times by an MS-18 member. All told, over the years, Tay-Chan and his family had quite a few violent encounters with MS-18, several of which resulted in the deaths of Tay-Chan's family members.2 To escape all this violence, Tay-Chan entered the U.S., without inspection or detention, through the Mexico-Arizona border. A few years later, the Immigration Service of the Department of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals