Case: 18-14632 Date Filed: 10/17/2019 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14632 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A074-511-273 THUYEN ANH QUACH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 17, 2019) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-14632 Date Filed: 10/17/2019 Page: 2 of 7 Thuyen Quach, a native of Vietnam, petitions for review of a final order from the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and stay deportation. In his petition, Quach argues that his untimely motion should have been subject to equitable tolling and that the Board erred in determining that he failed to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review. I. Quach was admitted to the United States as the child of a refugee in June of 1996. On April 22, 2013, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear to Quach alleging that Quach was subject to removal under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The Notice to Appear alleged that Quach had been convicted twice in Georgia courts for possession of marijuana. On July 1, 2013, Quach appeared before an Immigration Judge and admitted the factual allegations contained in the Notice to Appear. The Immigration Judge found that Quach was subject to removal, but advised Quach that he might be eligible for certain forms of relief. Quach informed the court that he did not wish to pursue that relief and asked the court to order his removal. The Immigration Judge ordered Quach deported to Vietnam. Quach did not appeal the decision to the Board. 2 Case: 18-14632 Date Filed: 10/17/2019 Page: 3 of 7 On December 19, 2017, Quach filed an emergency motion to stay his removal. 1 In his motion, Quach attempted to explain his delay in seeking relief by arguing that he had not been “present” at his previous hearing because he was not represented by counsel at the hearing. On January 9, 2018, the Immigration Judge denied the motion. In light of the substance of Quach’s motion, the Immigration Judge chose to construe the motion as both an emergency motion to stay and a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge concluded that Quach’s motion, filed over four years after his initial hearing, was untimely. The Immigration Judge noted that Quach had been present at his earlier hearing, whether or not he was represented by counsel. The Immigration Judge stressed that Quach had been informed of his rights and still had “repeatedly asked” for the Immigration Judge to enter an order of removal, despite both the Immigration Judge and the government informing Quach “that he appeared eligible for relief from removal.” 2 The Immigration Judge also concluded that Quach’s motion was procedurally deficient ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals