Court Opinion

ID: 9961738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 17:01:09.369522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:44.848109
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-9571    Document: 010111034880       Date Filed: 04/19/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         April 19, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  ANSELMO MUNOZ-VEGA,

        Petitioner,

  v.                                                         No. 23-9571
                                                         (Petition for Review)
  MERRICK B. GARLAND,
  United States Attorney General,

        Respondent.
                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Anselmo Munoz-Vega, proceeding pro se,1 petitions for review of an order of

 the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
       1
          Because Mr. Munoz-Vega proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments
 liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in
 constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
 & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 23-9571     Document: 010111034880         Date Filed: 04/19/2024   Page: 2

 immigration proceedings. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny

 the petition for review.

        Mr. Munoz-Vega is a native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United

 States without authorization in 1999. The Department of Homeland Security initiated

 removal proceedings against him in 2010. An immigration judge (IJ) found him

 removable as charged. With assistance from counsel, Mr. Munoz-Vega moved for

 cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. In 2018, the IJ granted voluntary

 departure but denied his application for cancellation of removal on the ground

 that Mr. Munoz-Vega failed to show any of his qualifying relatives would

 suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship by his return to Mexico.

 Mr. Munoz-Vega appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision and

 dismissed his appeal. Mr. Munoz-Vega filed a petition for review of the BIA

 decision, but this court dismissed that petition as untimely filed.

        Mr. Munoz-Vega then filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. In support of his

 motion, he attached four pieces of evidence: a notice from United States Citizenship

 and Immigration Services informing him it would not process the Form I-589 he

 submitted due to lack of jurisdiction, see R. vol. 1 at 17–18; his Form I-589

 application for asylum dated October 27, 2021, see id. at 20–29; a personal

 declaration, see id. at 30–41; and his birth certificate, see id. at 42–43.

        The BIA concluded the motion was untimely. See 8 U.S.C.

 § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting deadline to file a motion to reopen at 90 days following

 the entry of the final order of removal). After considering and rejecting

                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-9571    Document: 010111034880        Date Filed: 04/19/2024     Page: 3

 Mr. Munoz-Vega’s argument that an exception to the time limit applied,

 see id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (allowing for untimely motions to reopen to apply for

 asylum if application “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country

 of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is

 material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at

 the previous proceeding”), the BIA denied the motion, concluding Mr. Munoz-Vega

 did not present sufficient evidence to warrant reopening. This petition for review

 followed.

       “We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.

 The BIA abuses its discretion when its decision provides no rational explanation,

 inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains

 only summary or conclusory statements.” Estrada-Cardona v. Garland,

 44 F.4th 1275, 1281–82 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal citation and quotation marks

 omitted).

       Mr. Munoz-Vega’s arguments do not demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the

 part of the BIA. He criticizes the BIA’s denial of his original application for

 cancellation, but that denial is beyond the scope of the instant petition for review.

 See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405–06 (1995) (contemplating separate, timely

 filings of petition for review from underlying order of removal and of petition for

 review of denial of motion for reconsideration). He refers to Guerrero-Lasprilla v.

 Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020), as an intervening change in law warranting reopening

 of his immigration proceedings. But the Supreme Court decided Guerrero-Lasprilla

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-9571    Document: 010111034880        Date Filed: 04/19/2024        Page: 4

 before the BIA decided his initial appeal, much less before it denied his motion to

 reopen. And Mr. Munoz-Vega does not point to anything in Guerrero-Lasprilla

 suggesting the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion. He argues the BIA

 should have taken administrative notice “of the well reported fact of the large

 increase of violence in Mexico and de facto control of there by violent criminal

 cartels,” Pet’r Opening Br. at 3, but he did not request that the BIA take judicial

 notice of any kind. In any event, the issues he raises—whether and to what extent

 there has been a “large increase of violence in Mexico,” whether cartels exercise

 “de facto control” of the country, and whether and how this would affect his untimely

 motion to reopen—are not appropriate for judicial notice to the extent they are

 reasonably subject to dispute. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A) (allowing the BIA

 to take administrative notice only of “facts that are not reasonably subject to

 dispute”).

       We therefore deny the petition for review.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Gregory A. Phillips
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            4