Velasco v. Holder (2013)

Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in a brief order issued by a single 4 judge, “we review only the BIA’s opinion and not grounds stated in the IJ decision but not relied upon by the BIA.” Velasco v. Holder, 736 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2013).

Rather, our review is limited to principles of equitable tolling and sua sponte reopening. 10 Velasco v. Holder, 736 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2013).

Standard of Review “Because a single member of the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (e)(5), we review only the BIA’s opinion and not grounds stated in the IJ decision but not relied upon by the BIA.” Velasco v. Holder, 736 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2013).

The BIA, however, did not rely on that ground in affirming the IJ’s decision, and “we review only the BIA’s opinion and not grounds stated in the IJ decision but not relied upon by the BIA,” Velasco v. Holder, 736 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2013).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6); Peralta-Taveras, 488 F.3d at 584; see also Velasco v. Holder, 736 F.3d 944, 946 (10th Cir. 2013) (“ ‘Congress stated unequivocally’ that once an alien has obtained relief under one of the three provisions referenced in § 1229b(c)(6), the alien has had his bite at the apple and can no longer seek cancellation of removal.” (quoting Maldonado-Galindo v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006))).