NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 16-2713 ________________ MICKEL MESA RAMIREZ a/k/a Mickel Mesa, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A044-686-503) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on May 24, 2017 Before: HARDIMAN, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 17, 2017) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge Mickel Mesa Ramirez, an immigrant who was ordered removed because of his multiple criminal convictions, petitions for relief from an order denying his motion to reopen his case and reissue a previous Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order. For the foregoing reasons, we will deny in part, and dismiss in part, Mesa’s petition for review. I. Mesa, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a permanent resident of the United States, was ordered removed in May 2014 on account of his numerous criminal convictions, including various possession of controlled substances charges and one distribution charge. Mesa appealed to the BIA, and the BIA affirmed the removal order. Mesa was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his distribution charge was designated as an aggravated felony. Accordingly, Mesa was deported in January 2015. After he was deported, the Superior Court of New Jersey vacated the conviction for his aggravated felony charge based on ineffective assistance of counsel, rendering him eligible for cancellation of removal. On July 2, 2015, the BIA received Mesa’s motion to reopen his case.1 Later in the month, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild requested to file an amicus brief in this appeal. In August 2015, the BIA denied the motion to reopen on timeliness grounds, as the motion was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative order. Because Mesa 1 Notably, Mesa filed his appeal on April 2, 2015, but the BIA rejected it because he failed to file a change of address form. 2 claims that he was not served with notice of this decision, in October 2015, he requested that the BIA reissue the decision; when this was denied, he renewed his request in February 2016. In March 2016, the BIA vacated the August 2015 decision and issued an Amended Order clarifying that it had accepted the National Lawyers Guild as amicus curiae, but again denying Mesa’s motion to reopen. Days later, Mesa submitted yet another motion to reissue and reopen. On May 13, 2016, the BIA construed Mesa’s latest request to reissue and reopen as a motion to reopen and reconsider; it again denied both motions. Mesa then timely petitioned for review to this Court. II.2 On appeal, Mesa raises numerous arguments, including that 1) the BIA erroneously construed Mesa’s May 2016 motion to reopen and reissue as a motion to reopen and reconsider, 2) this ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals