Reginaldo Colino v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-1446 ___________ REGINALDO COLINO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A216-407-722 ) Immigration Judge: Irma Lopez Defillo ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 3, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 9, 2019) ___________ OPINION * ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Reginaldo Colino, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his motion to reopen, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review. Colino entered the United States on December 1, 1998 with permission to stay until May 31, 1999. On January 5, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for overstaying his visitor’s visa. Colino, through counsel, admitted his removability in Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge granted Colino and his counsel two continuances to submit any applications for relief from removal. At Colino’s removal hearing on May 23, 2018, the IJ asked Colino’s counsel what relief from removal Colino would be seeking. Colino’s counsel stated that Colino did not have any applications for relief from removal, and that any form of relief would be based on his cooperation with law enforcement in a pending criminal case. Colino’s counsel asked the IJ for an additional continuance. The IJ declined to grant any further continuances and noted that, if the Government needed Colino to remain in the United States to assist in a criminal prosecution, the Department of Homeland Security could stay his removal or facilitate an application on his behalf for an S-visa. 1 In any event, the 1 An S-visa is a temporary visa that allows a cooperating witness to remain in the United States for three years. Doe v. Holder, 763 F.3d 251, 253 n.2 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(S)). A law enforcement agency applies for the S-visa on behalf of a cooperating witness. Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(t)). 2 IJ concluded, Colino’s stated cooperation with law enforcement did not render him eligible for relief from removal. The IJ stated that Colino did not appear to be eligible for cancellation of removal because he had no qualifying relatives or eligible for withholding of removal because he did not fear harm upon his return to Brazil, to which Colino’s counsel responded, “That’s correct, your honor.” The IJ told Colino that she did not “foresee any other potential relief” for which he would “qualify for before the court.” The IJ asked Colino’s counsel if he could “enlighten [her] that there’s something that [she was] not seeing.” Colino’s counsel responded, “I can’t, your honor.” After counsel indicated that Colino would not be seeking voluntary ...

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