17-3219 Heitor v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A078 323 092 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 2nd day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ERITON JOABIS HEITOR, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-3219 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Song Park, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Micah Engler, 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Eriton Joabis Heitor, a native and citizen of 10 Brazil, seeks review of a September 14, 2017, decision of the 11 BIA affirming a May 24, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying Heitor’s motion to reopen proceedings and 13 rescind his in absentia removal order. In re Eriton Joabis 14 Heitor, No. A 078 323 092 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2017), aff’g No. 15 A 078 323 092 (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 24, 2017). Heitor 16 separately moves for remand to the BIA for consideration of 17 his argument that the immigration court lacked authority to 18 order his removal in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 19 2105 (2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 21 As an initial matter, there is no merit to Heitor’s 22 argument, raised in his motion to remand, that he is entitled 23 to relief under Pereira. To the extent that he argues that 2 1 his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was insufficient to vest 2 jurisdiction in the immigration court under Pereira, his 3 argument is foreclosed by our decision in Banegas-Gomez v. 4 Barr, in which we held that Pereira does not “void 5 jurisdiction in cases in which an NTA omits a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals