USCA11 Case: 20-12639 Date Filed: 04/08/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12639 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-613-281 BEKZHAN SARTMYRZAEV, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 8, 2021) Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12639 Date Filed: 04/08/2021 Page: 2 of 6 Bekzhan Sartmyrzaev petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s order denying his motion to reconsider its affirmance of the immigration judge’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Sartmyrzaev argues that the board should have reconsidered because a defect in the notice to appear deprived the immigration judge of jurisdiction over his case. We should remand the case, Sartmyrzaev maintains, for termination of his removal order. But Sartmyrzaev’s argument is barred by our decision in Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General, 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019). We therefore deny his petition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sartmyrzaev, a native and citizen of Kyrgyzstan, entered the United States on a visitor visa. He then changed his status to an F1 student visa, which expired in October 2013. In July 2014, Sartmyrzaev was served with a notice to appear before an immigration judge in Miami, but the notice didn’t provide a date or time for the removal hearing. Takhmina Kenzhetaeva, Sartmyrzaev’s then-wife, was also served with a notice to appear. Kenzhetaeva filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal, and Sartmyrzaev joined her application as a derivative beneficiary. In September 2014, Sartmyrzaev and his wife received notice of their initial hearing set for December 2014. They attended this hearing, which was continued so that they could obtain 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12639 Date Filed: 04/08/2021 Page: 3 of 6 counsel. Sartmyrzaev and his wife then received notice of a second hearing set for April 2015. At this second hearing, Sartmyrzaev and his wife conceded removability. In June 2015, Sartmyrzaev’s counsel was provided with notice of a third hearing. In April 2016, the immigration judge held an evidentiary hearing on Kenzhetaeva and Sartmyrzaev’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. In July 2016, the immigration judge entered an order denying their application. Sartmyrzaev and his wife appealed this decision to the board, which affirmed the immigration judge’s order. After the Supreme Court decided Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Sartmyrzaev moved the board “to reconsider and terminate in light of Pereira.” The board denied the motion because, under Perez-Sanchez, the defect in the notice to appear was not jurisdictional.1 Sartmyrzaev now petitions for our review. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the board’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir. 2013). 1 Sartmyrzaev alternatively argued that the board should reconsider his case because he was now remarried and his new wife had a pending asylum …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals