Mario Estrada-Hernandez v. William Barr, U. S. Att ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-60418      Document: 00515662287         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/04/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 4, 2020
    No. 19-60418
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Summary Calendar                               Clerk
    Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A078 929 737
    Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
    petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
    of his motion to reopen. Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 
    138 S. Ct. 2105
     (2018),
    Estrada-Hernandez argues that his notice to appear (NTA) was defective and
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-60418        Document: 00515662287         Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/04/2020
    No. 19-60418
    consequently deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction because it did
    not state the date and time of his removal proceedings. We have rejected this
    jurisdictional challenge and concluded that Pereira is limited to the context of
    the stop-time rule in removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 
    930 F.3d 684
    , 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 
    140 S. Ct. 2718
     (2020); Mauricio-
    Benitez v. Sessions, 
    908 F.3d 144
    , 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 
    139 S. Ct. 2767
     (2019). Estrada-Hernandez fails to show that the BIA committed
    legal error in denying his motion to reopen based on Pereira. See Ka Fung
    Chan v. INS, 
    634 F.2d 248
    , 252 (5th Cir. 1981).
    We are without jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada-Hernandez’s claim
    that the BIA should have exercised its discretionary authority to reopen the
    proceedings sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 
    866 F.3d 302
    , 306
    (5th Cir. 2017).
    DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-60418

Filed Date: 12/4/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/5/2020