NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 17-3208 _______________ VICTOR VIDAL, a/k/a Victor Saul Vidal Orellana, a/k/a Victor S. Vidal Orellana, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A073-533-626) Immigration Judge: Ramin Rastegar _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on July 9, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: August 2, 2018) _______________ OPINION _______________ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Victor Vidal entered the United States illegally in the early 1990s. In 1994, he applied for asylum. The immigration judge denied Vidal’s application, and the government sought to remove him. So Vidal hired a lawyer, who again applied for asylum and sought with- holding of removal. The immigration judge set a date for Vidal’s hearing and rescheduled it several times at his lawyer’s request. At the rescheduled hearing in 1996, Vidal’s lawyer attended. But Vidal did not, though his lawyer admitted that Vidal knew when and where the hearing would occur. So the immigration judge deemed his applications for relief abandoned and ordered him removed, as required by statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A) (formerly 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(1)). Vidal fell out of contact with his lawyer and so did not learn of the order right away. Still, he left the country and returned to his native Guatemala in 1996. While there, he learned of the order. Despite the removal order, he returned to the United States in 1998 and has lived here since. In 2017, Vidal was arrested for a traffic violation. The Department of Homeland Security found him and sought to remove him based on the 1996 order. Vidal then sought to reopen that order on three grounds: He challenged the order’s va- lidity, alleged that conditions in Guatemala had changed so as to warrant asylum and with- holding of removal, and asked the immigration judge to reopen his case sua sponte. The immigration judge denied those requests. He held that Vidal did not qualify for equitable tolling, had not shown changed country conditions, and did not merit sua sponte reopening. 2 The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Vidal now petitions us for review. We will deny his petition. The Board had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1103 and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). 1. Vidal does not qualify for equitable tolling. When an alien fails to attend a removal hearing, the immigration judge must order him removed if he is removable and was served with written notice of the hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). To rescind that order, an alien who received notice may move to reopen within 180 days of the removal order. Id. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (formerly 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A)). Here, Vidal’s lawyer received notice and attended ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals