Case: 18-15349 Date Filed: 12/20/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15349 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-679-745 ANGELINA FRANCISCO ESTEBAN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 20, 2019) Before WILSON, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Angelina Francisco Esteban seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen and terminate her removal proceedings in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), which was issued Case: 18-15349 Date Filed: 12/20/2019 Page: 2 of 5 by the U.S. Supreme Court after the BIA had dismissed her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. In her petition, Esteban argues that her notice to appear (“NTA”) did not vest the immigration court with jurisdiction over her removal proceedings because it did not specify the time and place of her removal hearing. After careful review, we deny the petition. We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo, and we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review “unless the petitioner has exhausted [her] administrative remedies with respect thereto.” Amaya Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right . . . .”). We review the BIA’s legal determinations and interpretations of law or statutes de novo. Castillo- Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006). The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides that an IJ shall conduct proceedings to determine whether an alien is removable from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1). The initiation of removal proceedings is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1229, which provides that the alien must be served with an NTA specifying, among other things, the nature of the proceedings, the charges against the alien, the requirement that the alien provide address and telephone contact information, the consequences of failing to appear for the alien’s removal hearing, 2 Case: 18-15349 Date Filed: 12/20/2019 Page: 3 of 5 and “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). The statute does not expressly provide the conditions upon which jurisdiction vests with the IJ, but the Justice Department’s regulations provide that “[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an [IJ] commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). In Pereira v. Sessions, issued on June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court considered a question “at the intersection of” § 1229(a), which involves the contents of an NTA, and the “stop-time” rule for cancellation of removal in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2109-10 (2018). To be eligible for cancellation of removal, an alien must be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals