17-4048 Sagastume Pascual v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 675 627/628 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 26th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 VILMA ARGENTINA SAGASTUME 14 PASCUAL, IRVING JOSUE MENDEZ 15 SAGASTUME, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 17-4048 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Karin Anderson Ponzer, Esq., 26 Neighbors Link Community Law 27 Practice, Ossining, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Jonathan A. Robbins, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel; Tracey 4 N. McDonald, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Vilma Argentina Sagastume Pascual and her minor son, 13 Irving Josue Mendez Sagastume, natives and citizens of 14 Guatemala, seek review of a November 29, 2017, decision of 15 the BIA affirming a March 30, 2017, decision of an Immigration 16 Judge (“IJ”) denying Pascual’s application for asylum, 17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Vilma Argentina Sagastume 19 Pascual, Irving Josue Mendez Sagastume, Nos. A 206 675 627/628 20 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2017), aff’g Nos. A 206 675 627/628 (Immig. 21 Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 30, 2017). We assume the parties’ 22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 23 in this case. 24 As an initial matter, our decision in Banegas Gomez v. 25 Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110 (2d Cir. 2019), forecloses Pascual’s 26 claim that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over her 2 1 removal proceedings because her notice to appear (“NTA”) did 2 not include the date and time of her hearing. “[A]n NTA that 3 omits information regarding the time and date of the initial 4 removal hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction 5 in the Immigration Court, at least so long as a notice of 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals