UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2440 BRENDA MERARY MADRID, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 14, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition granted and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin J. Osorio, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Linda Y. Cheng, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brenda Merary Madrid, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion for reopening and reconsideration. Before the Board, Madrid asserted that reopening was warranted because she was prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal. Citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Madrid contended that her notice to appear was deficient and thus did not terminate her period of continuous presence. See id. at 2113-14 (holding that notice to appear that does not designate time or place of removal proceeding does not trigger stop-time rule ending noncitizen’s period of continuous presence for cancellation of removal). The Board found that Madrid’s motion was untimely and number barred. Relying on In re Mendoza-Hernandez & Capula-Cortes, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520 (B.I.A. 2019), the Board also found that Madrid was not prima facie eligible for cancellation of removal because she was unable to satisfy the required 10-year period of continuous presence. In In re Mendoza-Hernandez, the Board held that a notice to appear lacking time and place information for the removal hearing can be perfected by a subsequent notice of hearing containing that information, which triggers the stop-time rule and ends the noncitizen’s period of continuous presence. See id. at 529. That rule resolved Madrid’s case, the Board held: Although she initially received a notice to appear without time and place information, Madrid later was served with another notice that provided those details, ending her continuous presence well short of the required 10-year period. 2 While Madrid’s petition for review was pending in this court, however, the Supreme Court ruled in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) that a notice to appear sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule and end a noncitizen’s pursuit of cancellation of removal must contain all the information about the noncitizen’s removal hearing specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Id. at 1479-80, 1485. We directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the impact of Niz-Chavez. After considering the supplemental briefs, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. A noncitizen who is found removable may apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) by showing that she has been physically present in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals