Jose Gonzalez-Cuevas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
JOSE GONZALEZ-CUEVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 20-9567
(Petition for Review)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORITZ,
Circuit Judge.
_________________________________
Jose Gonzalez-Cuevas appeals an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals upholding the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and
consider an application for cancellation of removal. The Board determined that
Gonzalez-Cuevas was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he had not
been present in the United States for a “continuous period” of at least ten years. 8
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R.
32.1(A).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 10, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-9567 Document: 010110519527 Date Filed: 05/10/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). Under the stop-time rule, the Board reasoned, Gonzalez-
Cuevas’s continuous-presence period ended when the government sent him a notice
to appear informing him of the removal proceedings, followed by another document a
few weeks later stating the date and time of a hearing.
In its response brief, the government acknowledged that the Board’s decision
conflicted with our decision in Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr, which held that “the stop-
time rule is triggered by one complete notice to appear rather than a combination of
documents.” 953 F.3d 1176, 1178 (10th Cir. 2020). As such, the government
“agree[d] that remand is appropriate.” Aplee. Br. 9.
We abated the appeal, however, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in a
case involving the same stop-time issue we faced in Banuelos-Galviz. The Supreme
Court has now decided that case, Niz-Chavez v. Garland, No. 19-863, 2021 WL
1676619 (Apr. 29, 2021), and the government recognizes that it “is in line with the
. . . holding in Banuelos-Galviz.” Resp’t Status Report 2, May 5, 2021.
Accordingly, we lift the abatement, grant Gonzalez-Cuevas’s petition for
review, and remand for further proceedings. See Artur v. Barr, 819 F. App’x 618, 621
(10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (“Because [the Board’s precedent] is no longer good
law in this circuit, we grant the petition for review and remand for the [Board] to
consider the motion to reopen in light of our decision in Banuelos-Galviz.”).
Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-9567 Document: 010110519527 Date Filed: 05/10/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --