NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0072n.06 Case No. 21-3613 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 09, 2022 YEON HWA KIM; TAEYOUNG KIM; SE ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk RYUN KIM, ) ) Petitioners, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES v. ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ) Respondent. ) ) Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; GIBBONS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, Chief Judge. Immigration authorities issued the Kim family notices to appear at removal proceedings. While the notices lacked a piece of statutorily required information—the date and time of the hearing—the government provided that information in a later document. The Kims argue that the immigration judge should have rejected the removal request based on the defective notices. But they waited until late in the proceeding to make the argument. Because the defective notices did not deprive the immigration judge of power to hear the case and because the Kims waited too long to object to the missing information, we deny their petition for review. Se Ryun Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, came to the United States as a student in 2005. Her parents, Yeon Hwa and Taeyoung, entered the country the next year as visitors with authorization to remain until 2007. The Kims overstayed. In June 2015, immigration authorities Case No. 21-3613, Kim, et al. v. Garland served all three with notices to appear at removal proceedings in Arlington, Virginia, at a date and time “[t]o be set.” A.R. 139. In August 2016, the Kims received hearing notices directing them to appear before an immigration judge on June 7, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. In March 2017, they retained counsel and successfully moved for a change of venue to Memphis, Tennessee. In doing so, they acknowledged proper service of their June 2015 notices to appear, admitted the allegations in the notices, and conceded their removability. Later that year, the Kims appeared with counsel before an immigration judge in Memphis. The immigration judge sustained the removability charges against them, then continued the case to the following spring to allow the Kims to prepare applications for relief from the removal orders. In March 2018, the Kims appeared with new counsel and moved for another continuance. The immigration judge continued the case until October 2018. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an initial notice omitting the time and place of removal proceedings does not qualify as a valid “notice to appear” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and thus cannot be used to determine whether an alien has been present in the country for the ten years required for cancellation-of-removal eligibility. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2113– 14 (2018). The next month, the Kims moved for the first time to terminate their removal proceedings. Because their June 2015 notices lacked the time of their initial hearing, they argued, the notices were invalid under Pereira and the immigration judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction over …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals