UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

IRASEMA SALCIDO-RODRIGUEZ, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, 

United States Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 19-9602 

(Petition for Review) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Irasema Salcido-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) denying her 

motion to reopen removal proceedings and consider an application for cancellation of 

removal. We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. 

 The immigration judge determined that Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez was not 

eligible for cancellation of removal because she had not been present in the United 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 23, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

States for a “continuous period” of at least ten years before she was served with a 

notice to appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez’s former 

counsel filed a notice of appeal, but did not file a brief, and the Board summarily 

dismissed the appeal. 

 Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez then moved to reopen in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 

138 S. Ct. 2105, 2110 (2018), and her counsel’s ineffective assistance. She argued 

that the notice of appeal served upon her was deficient under Pereira and did not 

trigger the stop-time rule, so that she had accrued the required ten years of presence. 

She further argued that her counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to 

remand under Pereira. The Board recognized that under Pereira, the notice to 

appear “would not stop [her] accrual of physical presence because it did not include 

the time and place of her hearing.” R. at 2. But the Board reasoned that the 

stop-time rule nevertheless applied because a subsequent notice of the time and place 

of the hearing cured any defect in the notice to appear. It also rejected the 

ineffective-assistance claim, in part reasoning that because of the stop-time rule, 

Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez had not suffered prejudice from her former counsel’s failure 

to move to remand. 

 After the Board’s decision, this court held that “the stop-time rule is triggered 

by one complete notice to appear rather than a combination of documents.” 

Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176, 1178 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 

2021 WL 1725170 (U.S. May 3, 2021) (No. 20-356). At the government’s request, 

we then abated this matter when the Supreme Court agreed to consider the same 
3 

stop-time issue in another case. The Supreme Court now has decided that case. 

Consistent with Banuelos-Galviz, it held that the stop-time rule does not apply unless 

the noncitizen is served with one complete notice to appear. See Niz-Chavez v. 

Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1485, 1486 (2021). 

 Accordingly, the Board’s decision is no longer good law. We lift the 

abatement, grant Ms. Salcido-Rodriguez’s petition for review, and remand for the 

Board to consider the motion to reopen in light of Niz-Chavez and Banuelos-Galviz. 

Entered for the Court 

Timothy M. Tymkovich 

Chief Judge