USCA11 Case: 21-14398 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-14398 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ KARLA M. AZMITIA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A076-417-155 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14398 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 21-14398 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Karla Azmitia (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Guate- mala, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of cancellation of removal. No reversible error has been shown; we deny the petition. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in January 1997. On 2 June 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served Petitioner personally with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). The NTA charged Petitioner as removable for being in the United States without admission or parole. In writing, the NTA ordered Petitioner to appear before an IJ at the Miami Immigration Court at 9:00 a.m. on 14 July 1998. No hearing was held on 14 July 1998. The hearing was moved to a later date. Petitioner’s removal hearing actually took place, instead, on 25 August 1998. Petitioner failed to attend the hearing; the IJ ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. Nearly twenty years later, Petitioner (through counsel) moved to rescind her in absentia removal order and to reopen her removal proceedings. Petitioner asserted that she never received notice of the 25 August 1998 hearing. An IJ granted Petitioner’s motion. The IJ noted that the record contained no notice resetting the master calendar hearing for 25 August 1998. After Petitioner’s USCA11 Case: 21-14398 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023 Page: 3 of 6 21-14398 Opinion of the Court 3 removal proceedings were reopened, Petitioner applied for cancel- lation of removal. At a merits hearing on Petitioner’s application, the govern- ment argued that Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of re- moval because she did not have -- prior to receiving the written NTA in 1998 -- ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. Petitioner responded that the NTA was defective and, thus, did not trigger the “stop-time rule”: a rule that stops the accrual of continuous physical presence upon service of the NTA. According to Petitioner -- although the NTA listed a time for a hearing -- the NTA did not specify the time of her actual hearing: a hearing for which Petitioner was given no written notice. The IJ denied Petitioner’s application and ordered Petitioner removed. The BIA later affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The BIA determined that Petitioner’s period of continuous physical presence ended on 2 June 1998: the day Peti- tioner was served the NTA specifying the time and place set for removal hearing. The BIA concluded that Petitioner failed to es- tablish ten years of continuous physical …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals