Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, No. 12–9578.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
Writing for the CourtBALDOCK
PartiesLucio SALGADO–TORIBIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Decision Date23 April 2013
Docket NumberNo. 12–9578.

713 F.3d 1267

Lucio SALGADO–TORIBIO, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 12–9578.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

April 23, 2013.


[713 F.3d 1268]


Lucio Salgado–Toribio, pro se.

[713 F.3d 1269]

Carmel A. Morgan, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.


Before O'BRIEN, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.*

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Lucio Salgado–Toribio, acting pro se, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. But this is not his first lap around the track. Petitioner has been using the federal courts' procedures to put off removal for more than three years since an immigration judge found him removable. This is now his third time seeking our review of an administrative decision over which we have no jurisdiction. Enough is enough. We deny Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the petition for review, and recommend that the Department of Homeland Security enforce the order of removal immediately.

I.

Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1998 without inspection. In February 2010, an immigration judge in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma found Petitioner removable as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The immigration judge denied Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal because he failed to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The immigration judge did, however, grant Petitioner's request for voluntary departure. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the immigration judge. R. at 90–91.

Petitioner then filed a petition for review and a motion for stay of removal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 10–72367 (9th Cir. order filed Aug. 27, 2010). Venue, however, was only proper in this circuit. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) (“The petition for review shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the proceedings.”). The Ninth Circuit entered a temporary stay of removal and inexplicably transferred the petition and temporary stay to the Fifth Circuit, which was also an improper venue. The Fifth Circuit transferred the petition to this court. See Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 10–60717 (5th Cir. order filed Aug. 31, 2010). We ordered Petitioner to file within 30 days a motion to continue the stay that complied with our local rules regarding a stay pending appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 8.1. We ultimately denied Petitioner's motion for stay of removal and dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which denies us jurisdiction over discretionary decisions by the BIA. Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 10–9557 (10th Cir. order filed Dec. 15, 2010). He then filed a petition for rehearing, which we also denied.

A month later, in February 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, arguing that new evidence of increased violence and corruption in Mexico warranted cancellation of removal. The BIA denied the motion as untimely and held that Petitioner failed to show an “exceptional situation” warranting sua sponte reopening. R. at 44–45. Petitioner then

[713 F.3d 1270]

filed a second petition for review in the Ninth Circuit. Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 11–71299 (9th Cir. order filed June 28, 2011). Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Tenth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit transferred the matter to this circuit with instruction that the temporary stay of removal remain in effect. We again ordered Petitioner to submit a renewed stay motion that complied with Tenth Circuit Rule 8.1. We then denied Petitioner's motion for stay of removal and dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that under Belay–Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998 (10th Cir.2003), we could not review the BIA's refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 11–9537 (10th Cir. order filed Dec. 12, 2011). Petitioner again filed a petition for panel rehearing which we again denied.

Undaunted, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen with the BIA. The BIA denied the motion as time and number barred and determined the motion did not present an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening. R. at 2. The BIA also denied his motion “to the extent that [Petitioner's] motion to reopen can be construed as a motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.” Id. For yet a third time, Petitioner improperly filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit, which entered a temporary stay and again transferred the petition and stay to this court. Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 12–72441 (9th Cir. order filed Sep. 5, 2012). We denied Petitioner's motion to continue or reinstate the stay of removal. (Order filed Nov. 28, 2012). Petitioner has applied for in forma pauperis status and Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In his brief, Petitioner points to the dangerous situation in Mexico and the threat that his three children (who are United States citizens) would face if taken to Mexico. He also makes a passing due process argument, asserting that “denial of the right to a full and fair hearing may violate the Constitutional guarantee of ‘Due Process,’ ” Petitioner's Br. at 3, and that his children's due process rights support reopening his removal proceedings, id. at 6.

II.

We start with Petitioner's in forma pauperis application. Federal law allows us to authorize an appeal “without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). But section 1915(e) requires us to dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal at any time if we determine the “appeal ... is frivolous or malicious.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Petitioner here is not a “prisoner” as defined in this section, but we have held that “[s]ection 1915(a) applies to all persons applying for IFP status, and not just to prisoners.” Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir.2005). Likewise, we apply section 1915(e)'s “frivolous or malicious” standard to both prisoner and non-prisoner litigation. See Merryfield v. Jordan, 584 F.3d 923, 926 (10th Cir.2009).

Applying section 1915(e)'s standard, we cannot grant Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. An appeal is frivolous under this section if it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). In his brief, Petitioner only challenges the BIA's holding that Petitioner had not presented an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings. But our precedent clearly forecloses

[713 F.3d 1271]

any review of that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 practice notes
  • Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2016
    ...error. Several circuits have held that courts of appeal do have such limited jurisdiction. See, e.g. , Salgado–Toribio v. Holder , 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2013) ; Pllumi v. Attorney General , 642 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2011) ; 840 F.3d 582Mahmood v. Holder , 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir......
  • Thompson v. Barr, No. 18-1823
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 21, 2020
    ...of a general recognition that there is no preclusion of such review if otherwise ordinarily available."); Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2013) ("We do have jurisdiction to review 'constitutional claims or questions of law' raised in a petition for review." (quotin......
  • Mendiola v. Holder, No. 12-9570
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 22, 2014
    ...that while we lack "jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte," Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2013), we nevertheless retain jurisdiction to "review 'constitutional claims or questions of law' raised in a petition for r......
  • Howell v. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., C. A. 21-11978-ADB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • May 2, 2022
    ...534, 536 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Moreover, Section 1915(e) has been applied to non-prisoner litigants. See, e.g., Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e apply section 1915(e)'s ... standard to both prisoner and non-prisoner litigation”) (citation omitted); Newso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
53 cases
  • Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2016
    ...error. Several circuits have held that courts of appeal do have such limited jurisdiction. See, e.g. , Salgado–Toribio v. Holder , 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2013) ; Pllumi v. Attorney General , 642 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2011) ; 840 F.3d 582Mahmood v. Holder , 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir......
  • Thompson v. Barr, No. 18-1823
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 21, 2020
    ...of a general recognition that there is no preclusion of such review if otherwise ordinarily available."); Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2013) ("We do have jurisdiction to review 'constitutional claims or questions of law' raised in a petition for review." (quotin......
  • Mendiola v. Holder, No. 12-9570
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 22, 2014
    ...that while we lack "jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte," Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2013), we nevertheless retain jurisdiction to "review 'constitutional claims or questions of law' raised in a petition for r......
  • Howell v. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., C. A. 21-11978-ADB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • May 2, 2022
    ...534, 536 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Moreover, Section 1915(e) has been applied to non-prisoner litigants. See, e.g., Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e apply section 1915(e)'s ... standard to both prisoner and non-prisoner litigation”) (citation omitted); Newso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT