UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1901 JOSE MANUEL MIRA-AVILA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 28, 2019 Decided: March 13, 2019 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kristi Bachir, IMMIGRATION FAMILY LEGAL SERVICES, Sterling, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Manuel Mira-Avila, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the Board’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008). On appeal, Mira-Avila raises various challenges to the agency’s reinstatement of his prior removal order, including a claim that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to obtain the 2009 removal order in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a)(1) (2018) (“The immigration officer must obtain the prior order of exclusion, deportation, or removal relating to the alien.”). Although the record contains a “Stipulated Request for Order of Removal and Waiver of Hearing,” the record does not contain a 2009 order of removal issued by an immigration judge. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) (2018); United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining process followed for stipulated requests for removal). 2 There is nonetheless ample evidence in the record to support a finding that an IJ promptly entered an order of removal following Mira-Avila’s stipulated request for removal. The stipulated request was signed on March 13, 2009; according to the Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, which Mira-Avila did not contest, he was ordered removed by the IJ on March 19, 2009, and removed to Honduras the following day. Moreover, Mira-Avila conceded that he was removed from the United States to Honduras in March 2009. Because Mira-Avila cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the DHS’s failure to produce the 2009 removal order, we discern no reversible error. See Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 655–56 (6th Cir. 2010) (concluding that no relief was warranted on DHS’s failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.8 when ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals