Gonzalo Vasquez-Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GONZALO VASQUEZ-GONZALEZ, Nos. 15-73653, 16-71088 Petitioner, Agency No. A092-043-543 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 5, 2021** Seattle, Washington Before: BOGGS,*** TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Gonzalo Vasquez-Gonzalez petitions for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): one dismissing his appeal of an order of the Immigra- tion Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and another * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, Senior Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Ap- peals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. denying a second motion to reopen in light of a purported fundamental change in law. Although we have jurisdiction to review these orders, Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), we deny both petitions because the relief sought is barred by statute. 1. This case’s factual background is recounted in some detail in our opinion fol- lowing Mr. Vasquez-Gonzalez’s criminal appeal, United States v. Vasquez-Gonza- lez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2018). This summary suffices for our present purposes: He came to the United States at a young age and became a lawful perma- nent resident in 1989. He was convicted of a violent felony in California in 1995 and was removed to Mexico in 1999. Less than two weeks after his removal, he reentered the United States illegally. After going undetected for more than a decade, he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2014. His order of removal was reinstated under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), and he was charged criminally with il- legal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The record does not reflect that he ever sought review of his removal order’s reinstatement. In 2015, Mr. Vasquez-Gonzalez moved to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that his due-process rights were violated because his former immigration lawyer had not pursued—and the IJ had not informed him of the possibility of— relief under former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Im- migrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, tit. III, § 304(b), 2 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-597). After the IJ denied his motion to reopen and the BIA dismissed his appeal, he filed a second motion to reopen directly with the BIA, ar- guing that the crime underlying his 1995 conviction no longer qualified as “violent” under 18 U.S.C. § 16 after our decision in Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015). The BIA denied that motion. He …

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