Flores-Martinez v. Atty Gen USA , 284 F. App'x 980 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-15-2008
Flores-Martinez v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2739
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Flores-Martinez v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 842.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/842
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2739
___________
ANTONIO FLORES MARTINEZ,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A97-701-371)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Donald V. Ferlise
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 9, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, STAPLETON and COWEN, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: July 15, 2008
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Antonio Flores-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a
final order of removal. We will deny the petition for review.
Flores-Martinez arrived in the United States without having been admitted or
paroled in 2000. The Department of Homeland Security served Flores-Martinez with a
Notice to Appear (NTA), charging him as removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Flores-Martinez admitted the allegations in the NTA, conceded
removability and sought relief in the form of voluntary departure, which the Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) granted on May 18, 2006.
On August 16, 2006 Flores-Martinez filed a motion to reopen to seek relief in the
form of cancellation of removal due to the birth of his son in June, 2006. Flores-Martinez
also alleged that the translator during his removal proceedings mistakenly informed his
counsel that his entry date was 2000 instead of 1994. The IJ denied the motion because
Flores-Martinez failed to include his application for cancellation of removal, did not meet
the statutory requirements for cancellation of removal, and had not filed an affidavit with
the Court explaining the translation mistake. Flores-Martinez filed an appeal with the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision.
The BIA agreed that Flores-Martinez neither filed an application for cancellation of
removal nor established prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
We review the BIA’s decision and only review the IJ’s decision to the extent that
the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 475 (3d Cir.
2003). The denial of a motion to reopen may be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational,
or contrary to law.” Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted).
2
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Flores-
Martinez’s assertion that he was not required to submit an application for cancellation of
removal along with his motion to reopen is contrary to the regulations governing such
motions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). His explanation for non-compliance, that he was
injured in a car accident rendering him incapable of assisting with the gathering of
evidence, is unconvincing. Flores-Martinez never specifies what type of injuries he
sustained or how they prevented him from assisting his counsel. Flores-Martinez also did
not mention the accident before the IJ, where he could have requested a continuance in
order to complete the application. Moreover, for the reasons stated by the BIA, Flores-
Martinez’s reliance on In re Yewondwosen, 21 I & N Dec. 1025 (BIA 1997) is misplaced.
See Palma-Mazariegos v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir. 2007).
The BIA also did not err in its determination that Flores-Martinez failed to make
out a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), the
Attorney General may cancel removal if an alien: 1) has been physically present in the
United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the
date of the application; 2) has been a person of good moral character during such period;
3) has not been convicted of an offense under sections 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2) or
1227(a)(3); and 4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United
States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The BIA’s determination
3
that Flores-Martinez failed to establish his physical presence in the United States for 10
years was not an abuse of discretion. The BIA properly held that Flores-Martinez’s
brother’s letter and a letter from his attorney, alleging that he made a mistake in Flores-
Martinez’s date of entry, were insufficient to overcome his admission during removal
hearings that he entered the country in 2000.1
For the above-stated reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
1
In his brief, Flores-Martinez asks us to reinstate his voluntary departure period. We
lack the jurisdiction to do so. See Reynoso-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 275, 280 (3d Cir.
2004).
4