Case: 16-60515 Document: 00514642260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60515 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2018 JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-SARAGOSA, Lyle W. Cayce Petitioner Clerk v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Jose Luis Rodriguez-Saragosa’s application for cancellation of removal was denied for reasons that have since become legally infirm. But rather than challenge his removal from abroad, Rodriguez-Saragosa reentered the country illegally. More than a decade later, immigration authorities re-apprehended him, and he moved the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen his orig- inal removal proceedings. The difficulty, however, is 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), which provides: “If the [Secretary of Homeland Security] finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed,” the prior order of removal “is not subject to being reopened.” Because Rodriguez-Saragosa concedes that such a Case: 16-60515 Document: 00514642260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 No. 16-60515 finding was made in his case, his original order of removal (and the proceedings of which it was a part) are “not subject to being reopened.” The BIA was thus correct to deny his motion to reopen. We deny his petition for review. I In 1999, an immigration judge found Rodriguez-Saragosa unlawfully present in the United States and ordered him removed to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The immigration judge also denied Rodriguez-Saragosa’s ap- plication for the discretionary form of relief known as cancellation of removal. Specifically, the immigration judge held that Rodriguez-Saragosa’s 1989 con- viction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle in violation of Texas Penal Code section 31.07 constituted a conviction for a “crime of violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), rendering Rodriguez-Saragosa statutorily ineli- gible for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); see also §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); 1101(a)(43)(F); United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 1999). The BIA affirmed that decision in April 2002, and the removal order became final. Rodriguez-Saragosa was removed to Mexico shortly thereafter. Nonetheless, Rodriguez-Saragosa unlawfully reentered the country in April 2003. He resumed living with his family in Austin, Texas until October 2015, when he pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. At that point, Ro- driguez-Saragosa came to the attention of the Department of Homeland Secu- rity (DHS), whose agents arrested him and charged him with unlawful reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). According to Rodriguez-Saragosa’s filings in our court, DHS also used this opportunity to reinstate his 2002 removal order (although the administrative record omits the official notice of that action). While in federal custody in January 2016, Rodriguez-Saragosa met with his present counsel, who informed him for the first time that his 1989 convic- tion no longer qualified as a conviction for a § 16(b) “crime of violence” under our court’s decision in United States ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals