USCA11 Case: 21-12446 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 21-12446 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A070-567-757 VICTORIANO IXCOY-ITZEP, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 22, 2021) Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Victoriano Ixcoy-Itzep, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reconsider its summary dismissal of his administrative appeal from a final deportation order. USCA11 Case: 21-12446 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 2 of 6 The government, in turn, moves for summary denial of Ixcoy-Itzep’s petition, arguing that the Board’s denial of his motion to reconsider was not an abuse of discretion because he did not specify any legal or factual error in the prior order. Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). I. Ixcoy-Itzep entered the United States without inspection in 1992. An immigration judge entered an order of removal in 1994, and Ixcoy-Itzep was deported several years later. He apparently reentered the United States the following year, again without inspection, and in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the 1994 removal order. Following a series of events not relevant to the present petition, Ixcoy-Itzep moved to rescind the 1994 removal order or, alternatively, to reopen his removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied the motion, and Ixcoy-Itzep appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. In his notice of administrative appeal, he stated that he was appealing because the immigration judge “erred as a matter of law and discretion in not granting” his motion, without further explanation. He also indicated that he intended to file a separate written brief. 2 USCA11 Case: 21-12446 Date Filed: 09/22/2021 Page: 3 of 6 The Board issued a briefing schedule setting a deadline for Ixcoy-Itzep to submit a brief. Although his counsel apparently filed a brief in the immigration court on the day of the deadline, he did not file a brief with the Board. A few months later, therefore, the Board summarily dismissed his appeal because his notice of administrative appeal did not specifically identify the findings of fact or conclusions of law that he was challenging, and although his notice of appeal indicated that he would file a separate appeal brief, he had not done so by the deadline in the Board’s briefing schedule. The Board acknowledged that counsel had incorrectly filed an appeal brief with the immigration court, but it declined to consider that brief because (1) the form that counsel used for his notice of administrative appeal contained a warning that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals