C L D

- 0 9 2 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___ _____ ___

No. 1 9

- 3 7 3 6

___________

JOSE SERRANO

- ARIAS

,

P e t i t i o n e r

v.

A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

____________________________________

On P e t i t i o n f

o r R e v i e w o f a n O r d e r o f t h e

B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s

( A g e n c y No. A205

- 829

- 261 )

I m m i g r a t i o n Judge: C h a r l e s M

. H o n e y m a n

_______________

_____________________

Submitted for P o s s i b l e Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

Janua ry 16, 2020

B efore: J O R D A N

, K R A U S E

, a n d M A T E Y

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed January 23, 2020 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

PER CURI AM

J o s e S e r r a n o

- A r i a s p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v i e w o f a n o r d e r o f t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n

* This disposition is no t an opinion of t he full C ou rt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 doe s not

c onstitute binding precedent.2

A p p e a l s ( B I A ) d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s f i l e d a

m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n

. W e w i l l g r a n t t h e m o t i o n a n d d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r

r e v i e w

.

I

.

Serrano

- A rias, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 2001. In 2 0 1 3

, he

was charged with remova b i l i t y u n d e r 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( i i ) because he had entered

the country without being admitted or paroled . Serrano

- Arias conceded removability b u t

applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1229b(b). A n Immigration Judge

(IJ) denied relief, concluding that Serrano

- Arias f a i l e d t o s h o w t h a t h e w a s e l i g i b l e for

cancellation o f r e m o v a l

. O n April 25, 2018, t h e B I A a f f i r m e d t h e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n a n d

dism i ssed Serrano

- Arias ’ s a p p e a l

. H e did not petition this Court for review of that ruling.

On October 20, 2019, Serrano

- A rias filed a motion for reconsideration with the

BIA. 1 He argued that

, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pere ira v

. Sess ions

,

138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), he could now e s t a b l i s h e l i g i b i l i t y f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l

.

The BIA rejected this argument a n d denied the motion for reconsideration

.

Serrano

- Arias tim ely filed a petition for review. T h e G o v e r n m e n t n o w m o v e s t h e

C o u r t f o r s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n

.

I I

.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s de c i s i o n

1 The BIA deemed the motion timely.3

d e n y i n g reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Pllumi v. Att’y Gen. , 64 2 F.3d 155,

158 (3d Cir. 2011). The purp ose of a motion to reconsider is to “request that the Board

re examine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of la w, or perhaps

an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” C a s t r o v

. A t t ’ y G e n

. , 6 7 1 F

. 3 d

3 5 6

, 3 6 4 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 2 ) ; s e e a l s o 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 )

. S u m m a r y a c t i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t e

i f t h e r e i s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w

. S e e 3 d C i r

. L

. A

. R

.

2 7

. 4 ; 3 d C i r I

. O

. P

. 1 0

. 6

.

I I I

.

I n h i s m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

, S e r r a n o

- A r i a s a s k e d t h e B I A t o r e e x a m i n e i t s

d e c i s i o n a f

f i r m i n g t h e I J ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t h e w a s i n e l i g i b l e f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e m o v a l u n d e r 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b ( b )

. P u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 2 9 b ( b )

, a nonpermanent resident is

eligible for cancellation of removal i f he: (1) has been p hysicall y present for a c ontinuous

period of not less than ten years; (2) has been a person of good moral c haracter during

that time; (3) h as not been convicted of certain enumerated criminal offenses; and (4)

demonstrates that removal would result in exce ptional and extrem ely unu sual hardship to

the alien ’ s spouse, parent, or child, wh o is a citizen of the Uni ted States or a lawful

permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)

- ( D )

. S e r r a n o

- A r i a s t o l d t h e B o a r d t h a t

t h e I J d e n i e d r e l i e f i n p a r t b e c a u s e h e h a d f a i l e d t o m e e t t h e c o n t i n u o u s

- p h y s i c a l

- p r e s e n c e

requirement

. S e r r a n o

- A r i a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e I J ’ s r u l i n g i n t h i s r e g a r d

, a s a f f i r m e d b y t h e

B I A

, h a s b e e n c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n P e r e i r a c o n c e r n i n g

t h e “ s t o p t i m e ” r u l e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t i n u o u s

- p h y s i c a l

- p r e s e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t

.4

C o n t r a r y t o S e r r a n o

- A r i a s ’ s c o n t e n t i o n

, h o w e v e r

, t h e I J d i d n o t d e n y h i s

c a n c e l l a t i o n

- o f

- r e m o v a l a p p l i c a t i o n b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y t h e c o n t i n u o u s

- p h y s i c a l

p r e s e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t

. R a t h e r

, t h e I J d e n i e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y a

s e p a r a t e requirement

— t h a t h i s r e m o v a l w o u l d r e s u l t i n “ e x t r e m e l y u n u s u a l h a r d s h i p ” t o

h i s c i t i z e n c h i l d r e n

. T h e r e f o r e

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n P e r e i r a i s i r r e l e v a n t t o

h i s c a s e

. B e c a u s e S e r r a n o

- A r i a s d i d n o t a l l e g e a n y o t h e r e r r o r s o f f a c t o r l a w i n h i s

m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

, t h e B I A a c t e d w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g r e l i e f

.

I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n

, S e r r a n o

- A r i a s

c h a l l e n g e s t h a t B I A ’ s A p r i l 2 5

, 2 0 1 8 d e c i s i o n a f f i r m i n g t h e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l ; s p e c i f i c a l l y

, h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e B I A e r r e d origi nally i n

a f f i r m i n g t h e I J ’ s h a r d s h i p f i n d i n g s

. S e r r a n o

- A r i a s d i d n o t

, h o w e v e r

, t i m e l y p e t i t i o n t h i s

C o u r t f o r r e v i e w o f t h e B I A ’ s Apri l 25, 2018 d e c i s i o n

. T h e r e f o r e

, w e l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o

r e v i e w i t

. S e e S t o n e v I N S

, 5 1 4 U

. S

. 3 8 6

, 4 0 5

- 0 6 ( 1 9 9 5 )

.

I V

.

B e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n f

o r r e v i e w d o e s n o t p r e s e n t a s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n

, w e w i l l

g r a n t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n a n d d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w

.