Ansoumane Diabate v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 18-3397 _______________ ANSOUMANE DIABATE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (A200-764-922) Immigration Judge: Margaret R. Reichenberg _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on September 12, 2019 Before: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: October 9, 2019) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Courts must enforce the law even when the results seem inequitable. Ansoumane Dia- bate fled violence, came to the United States, and overstayed his visa. Though an immigra- tion judge ordered him removed, he was allowed to stay here under an Order of Supervi- sion. For many years, he complied with that order, routinely checking in with immigration officers. He also got a job and married a disabled American citizen, caring and providing for her. Yet the government later detained him and now wants to remove him. He attacks his removal proceedings and seeks to reopen them. But our hands are tied. Even though the Notice to Appear lacked the date and time of his removal proceedings, the immigration judge still had jurisdiction. And the Board of Immigration Appeals has almost unfettered discretion to reopen removal proceedings or not. It decided not to do so, and we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. So we must dismiss Diabate’s petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Diabate is a native and citizen of Guinea. After the military violently attacked him and his family because of their ethnicity and political opinions, he fled the country. Nearly two decades ago, he entered the United States lawfully on a nonimmigrant visa. But he over- stayed the visa’s one-year term. Many years later, immigration officers detained Diabate. They served him with a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge in Newark, New Jersey “on a date to be set [and] at a time to be set.” App. 276 (emphases added). Thirteen days later, the immigration judge 2 followed up and notified him that the hearing would happen the next morning at 8:30 a.m. He appeared at the hearing by video link and got a continuance, and then another one. At the rescheduled hearing, Diabate conceded that he was removable. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied all relief and ordered him removed. Diabate did not seek judicial review of this decision. Rather than deporting him, immigration officers released Diabate from custody under an Order of Supervision. The Order required him to report to immigration officers period- ically and to notify them before traveling beyond New York and New Jersey. About two years later, he married an American citizen. He admirably cared for his dis- abled wife and provided for her. And his wife filed a visa petition ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals