NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3100 WILLIAMS ALEXANDER LEVERON MARTINEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No.: A216-545-134) Immigration Judge: John P. Ellington ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R 34.1(a) July 1, 2019 Before: MCKEE, PORTER, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 8, 2020) ___________ OPINION* ___________ McKee, Circuit Judge. Williams Alexander Leveron Martinez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. his Motion to Reopen removal proceedings. Leveron Martinez argues that his due process rights were violated because he lacked the competency to defend against his removal in proceedings before the Immigration Judge. He therefore claims that his admission of removal and waiver of his appellate rights were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review.1 I. Leveron Martinez filed a timely Emergency Motion to Reopen his removal proceedings arguing that his admission of removability and waiver of his appellate rights were not knowing, intelligent and voluntarily because he suffered from cognitive deficits.2 His motion claimed that the deficits resulted from an attack where he was hit in the head with brass knuckles and sustained a fourteen-inch laceration that required stitches.3 He claims to take medicine to manage symptoms resulting from the head injury.4 In further support of his claimed cognitive deficits, Leveron Martinez submitted a newspaper article about the attack and the criminal docket showing his assailant pled guilty to the assault.5 Additionally, he also argued that his removal proceedings should 1 The BIA has jurisdiction over motions to reopen removal proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) we have exclusive jurisdiction to review “any final order of removal,” which includes the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings. Cruz v. Att’y Gen’l., 452 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2006). 2 Pet. Br. at 8. 3 Id. at 3. 4 Id. 5 Id. at 9. 2 be reopened because he is a known informant who has received threats against his life by individuals living in his native country of Guatemala.6 The IJ denied the Motion to Reopen the day after it was filed.7 In doing so, the IJ found to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent Leveron Martinez’s refusal of the IJ’s multiple offers to continue the matter so that Leveron Martinez could seek counsel from an attorney and/or his family.8 The IJ also noted that after having requested a bond, Leveron Martinez only declined to have one set after being told it would be around $40,000.9 Finally, the IJ found that after Leveron Martinez asked to be removed to Guatemala he affirmatively waived his appellate rights and that all of these ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals