NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 21-2369 _____________ MARCOS ANTONIA CASTILLO HIDALGO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A043-249-202) Immigration Judge: Jason L. Pope _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 7, 2022 Before: JORDAN, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Filed: November 21, 2022) _______________ OPINION ∗ _______________ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Marcos Castillo Hidalgo, 1 a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, conceded his removability before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). He did so on the basis of his earlier guilty plea to a drug offense, though he contested whether that conviction barred him from seeking cancellation of removal. When the IJ concluded that the conviction did create such a bar and ordered him removed, Castillo Hidalgo sought review by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Meanwhile, a state court concluded on collateral review that Castillo Hidalgo had made a prima facie case that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. With that ruling in hand, Castillo Hidalgo moved to remand his case to the IJ with instructions to reinstate his application for cancellation of removal and to calendar a merits hearing. The BIA nevertheless affirmed the IJ’s decision and, in the process, denied his motion to remand. Before us now, Castillo Hidalgo seeks only review of the denial of his motion to remand. We will deny his petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Castillo Hidalgo was admitted to United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1992 at the age of nine. In October 2019, he pled guilty to manufacturing, distributing, or 1 While there are a few instances in which the Petitioner’s name is given as Castillo-Hidalgo, we have used the spelling that appears more frequently, including in his petition for review. 2 possessing with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:35-5A(1) and -5B(2), and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. 2 The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him in July 2020. He was served with a Notice to Appear charging that his conviction rendered him subject to removal because it was an offense relating to a federally controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and also because it was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Before the IJ, Castillo Hidalgo admitted the factual allegations against him and conceded his removability on the first ground. He contested the second ground, as a conviction for an aggravated felony would render him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. And, indeed, he filed an application for cancellation of removal. After an interim decision from the IJ holding that his conviction is an aggravated felony, Castillo Hidalgo declined to seek any other form of relief or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals