Real-Mendoza v. Barr

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 15, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court BLADIMIR ELISEO REAL- MENDOZA, Petitioner, No. 19-9552 (Petition for Review) v. WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Mr. Bladimir Eliseo Real-Mendoza is a Nicaraguan citizen who entered the United States in the 1990s. Because he lacked permission to enter, the government requested removal to Nicaragua. In the hearing on this request, Mr. Real-Mendoza admitted that he was removable. But he * Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). asked the immigration judge for two remedies that would allow him to remain in the United States: Asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 1 The immigration judge rejected both requests. Mr. Real- Mendoza appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals and, in the alternative, requested a remand to allow him to apply to the immigration judge for cancellation of removal. The Board decided that Mr. Real-Mendoza didn’t qualify for any of these remedies, and Mr. Real-Mendoza filed a petition for review. We deny the petition as to the denial of asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. But we grant the petition as to the denial of remand to consider cancellation of removal. The Board erred in deeming Mr. Real- Mendoza ineligible, so we remand for the Board to reconsider whether to grant the motion to remand. Background I. Mr. Real-Mendoza enters the United States after his cousins are killed in Nicaragua. In 1992, two of Mr. Real-Mendoza’s cousins were killed in Nicaragua. The police saw the killing, and Nicaraguan officials charged the killer with murder. He claimed self-defense and obtained an acquittal. 1 He also asked for withholding of removal, but he does not address the denial of this remedy in his petition for review. 2 The family of the victims apparently had a right to appeal the outcome. See Cόdigo Procesal Penal, La Gaceta, Dec. 24, 2001, arts. 362, 380 (stating that in criminal cases, the family members of a deceased victim can appeal the decision). As the family considered whether to appeal, someone threatened Mr. Real-Mendoza and his uncle. Months after these threats, someone shot at Mr. Real-Mendoza in his car. More threats came about a year later, and Mr. Real-Mendoza fled to the United States in about 1994. He left and returned to the United States in 2004. II. The agency orders removal ...

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