USCA11 Case: 20-12356 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12356 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-311-981 FRANCISCA ANTONIA MURILLO-VALLECILLO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 17, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12356 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Francisca Antonia Murillo-Vallecillo petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision reinstating her order of removal. The government has filed a motion for a summary denial of her petition. After careful review, we grant the government’s motion. Murillo-Vallecillo entered the United States without inspection, and the Department of Homeland Security served her with a notice to appear, alleging that she was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Although the notice failed to identify the time or place of the removal hearing, the agency later notified Murillo-Vallecillo of the time and place of the hearing. Murillo-Vallecillo failed to appear for her removal hearing, and the immigration judge entered an order of removal. Later, Murillo-Vallecillo sought to reopen her proceedings and have the order of removal rescinded, arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings because the notice to appear failed to set forth the time and place of her removal hearing. The immigration judge agreed that the agency lacked jurisdiction and entered an order terminating the removal proceedings. But the BIA vacated the immigration judge’s decision and reinstated the removal order. In this petition for review, Murillo-Vallecillo argues that the agency lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings because she had been served with a defective notice to appear. The government moved for summary disposition, 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12356 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 Page: 3 of 6 arguing that our precedent forecloses Murillo-Vallecillo’s argument that the agency lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. Summary disposition is appropriate either when time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or when “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).1 We review de novo the BIA’s legal determinations and interpretations of law or statutes, “deferring to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers only if the statute’s language is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1152 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under our prior panel precedent rule, “the holding of the first panel to address an issue is the law of this Circuit” and “bind[s] all subsequent panels unless and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals