NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-2967 ______________ ANDELSON FERREIRA-DE SOUZA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A079-656-584) Immigration Judge: Ramin Rastegar ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 24, 2021 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge. * (Filed: August 6, 2021) _____________ OPINION∗∗ ______________ GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. * The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ∗∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Andelson Ferreira-De Souza (“Souza”) seeks review of the August 27, 2020, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this motion. We will deny Souza’s petition. I. BACKGROUND Souza is a citizen of Brazil who entered the United States through Nogales, Arizona without inspection in May 2002. Shortly after his arrival, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served Souza with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in Immigration Court that failed to specify the date and time of Souza’s hearing. The NTA charged that Souza was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). A Notice of Hearing was later mailed to Souza, stating that his case was scheduled for a master calendar hearing on May 13, 2002. Souza appeared for the hearing. At a subsequent master calendar hearing in August 2002, the Immigration Court granted Souza voluntary departure until December 2002, with an alternate order of removal to Brazil. Souza did not appeal the IJ’s decision. It then became a final administrative order of removal. Souza did not depart the United States within the voluntary departure period. Thus, the alternate order of removal became final. In February 2019, Souza, through counsel, moved to reopen his removal proceedings. He sought sua sponte reopening pursuant to Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). In that case, the Supreme Court held that an NTA that does not designate a specific time and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings does not trigger the stop- 2 time rule ending the period of continuous presence in the United States for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Id. at 2109-10. The IJ denied Souza’s motion to reopen, finding that the service of both the NTA and subsequent Notice of Hearing were enough to vest the court with jurisdiction and to meet the statutory notice requirements in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). The IJ determined that Souza could not meet the ten-year continuous physical presence requirement and therefore could not establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. The IJ also found that Souza did not establish exceptional circumstances requiring sua sponte reopening of the proceedings. In October 2019, Souza, again …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals