FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 28, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court ONG VUE, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9517 (Petition for Review) MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before HOLMES, O’BRIEN, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Pro se petitioner Ong Vue, a native and citizen of Laos, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his petition to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review and deny Vue’s pending motions. In accordance with Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Matthew G. Whitaker is substituted for Jefferson B. Sessions, III, as the respondent in this action. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. I. Background Vue entered the United States in 1985. In 1998 he entered a plea of no contest in Oklahoma state court to one count of murder in the first degree and two counts of shooting with intent to kill. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction and two 20-year terms for the shooting-with-intent-to-kill convictions. In 1999, Vue was issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (alien convicted of an aggravated felony) and 1227(a)(2)(C) (alien convicted of a firearms offense). On August 24, 1999, an IJ ordered Vue removed to Thailand or Laos. Vue did not appeal. Almost 18 years later, on July 13, 2017, Vue filed the underlying motion to reopen. A different IJ denied the motion, concluding (1) the motion was time barred because it was filed more than 90 days after the initial removal order; (2) equitable tolling was not warranted because he did not show he diligently pursued his rights and he was prevented from timely filing by extraordinary circumstances; (3) his due process right to counsel in his first immigration hearing was not violated because the IJ provided an opportunity for him to obtain counsel, which he declined; (4) his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his Oklahoma state criminal proceedings did not affect the immigration proceedings unless and until his convictions were overturned, which they had not been; and (5) sua sponte reopening was not warranted because his situation was not truly exceptional. The BIA dismissed Vue’s appeal from the IJ’s decision. 2 II. Discussion “[O]ur jurisdiction to review an order of removal against an aggravated felon is significantly limited: we may review the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals