794 Fed.Appx. 516 (6th Cir. 2020), 19-3650, Murcia-Pinto v. Barr

Docket Nº:19-3650
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 516
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:Ana Judith MURCIA-PINTO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:Margaret W. Wong, Margaret Wong & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner Rachel Louise Browning, Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Judge Panel:BEFORE: GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 516

794 Fed.Appx. 516 (6th Cir. 2020)

Ana Judith MURCIA-PINTO, Petitioner,

v.

William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-3650

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

February 24, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 6th Cir. Rule 32.1.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Margaret W. Wong, Margaret Wong & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner

Rachel Louise Browning, Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

BEFORE: GIBBONS, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ana Judith Murcia-Pinto petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY the petition for review.

Murcia-Pinto, a native of Guatemala and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in 2007. In October 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Murcia-Pinto a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging her with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The notice to appear ordered Murcia-Pinto to appear before an immigration judge (IJ) on a date and at a time "to be set." In November 2010, the immigration court sent Murcia-Pinto a notice scheduling a hearing for June 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.; she appeared at that hearing. Murcia-Pinto later conceded removability as charged and filed an application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting her fear of persecution in Honduras by the Chinchilla gang. After a hearing, the IJ denied Murcia-Pinto’s application for withholding of removal and CAT protection but granted her request for voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed Murcia-Pinto’s appeal from the IJ’s denial of her application for withholding of removal but remanded for further proceedings regarding her request for voluntary departure. On remand, the IJ issued a removal order at Murcia-Pinto’s request. This court later denied Murcia-Pinto’s petition for review of the BIA’s order dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for withholding of removal. Murcia-Pinto v. Sessions, No. 17-3255 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2017) (order).

Murcia-Pinto subsequently filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings to apply for asylum and related relief based on changed country conditions. The BIA denied Murcia-Pinto’s motion.

Two months later, Murcia-Pinto filed another motion to reopen, this time to apply for cancellation of removal in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, __ U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018). To be eligible for cancellation of removal, an alien must have "been physically present in the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP