Ramiro Bernardo Gomez-Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 19-12196   Date Filed: 03/10/2020   Page: 1 of 2
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 19-12196
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    Agency No. A200-617-099
    RAMIRO BERNARDO GOMEZ-LOPEZ,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ________________________
    (March 10, 2020)
    Before BRANCH, GRANT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 19-12196       Date Filed: 03/10/2020      Page: 2 of 2
    Ramiro Gomez-Lopez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen on the basis that his notice to appear (NTA)
    was deficient and, therefore, the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his
    removal proceedings. After review, 1 we deny the petition for review.
    Under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1229
    (a)(1), an alien in removal proceedings must be
    provided with an NTA specifying the time or place of the alien’s hearing. 
    8 U.S.C. § 1229
    (a)(1)(G)(i). An NTA that does not specify the time and place of the
    hearing does not comport with 
    8 U.S.C. § 1229
    (a) and consequently is not an NTA
    under § 1229(a). Pereira v. Sessions, 
    138 S. Ct. 2105
    , 2110 (2018). We recently
    clarified that 
    8 U.S.C. § 1229
    (a) and related agency regulations set out a
    claim-processing rule, as opposed to a jurisdictional rule. Perez-Sanchez v. U.S.
    Att’y Gen., 
    935 F.3d 1148
    , 1150 (11th Cir. 2019). Because the rule is not
    jurisdictional, its violation does not deprive immigration courts of jurisdiction. 
    Id.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion because Gomez-Lopez’s claim
    is foreclosed by our holding in Perez-Sanchez that statutorily deficient notices to
    appear do not deprive immigration courts of jurisdiction. See Perez-Sanchez, 935
    F.3d at 1150. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
    PETITION DENIED.
    1
    The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
    Montano Cisneros v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    514 F.3d 1224
    , 1226 (11th Cir. 2008).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-12196

Filed Date: 3/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/10/2020