Case: 19-60144 Document: 00515477941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 6, 2020 No. 19-60144 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ADRIAN RANGEL-BETANCOURT, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 672 721 Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Adrian Rangel-Betancourt seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He contends: the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear (NTA) he received was deficient; and the BIA erred in denying his motion to remand. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60144 Document: 00515477941 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 No. 19-60144 Rangel is a native and citizen of Mexico who admitted being removable based on his having entered the United States without authorization. The IJ denied his requests for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. In his appeal to the BIA, Rangel challenged the denial of his withholding- of-removal and CAT claims. He also moved: for the termination of his removal proceedings, asserting the immigration court lacked jurisdiction in the light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because his NTA failed to specify the time and place of his initial removal hearing; or, alternatively, for remand to the IJ to consider, in the light of Pereira, his claim (not made to the IJ) for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) (“The Attorney General may cancel removal of . . . an alien who . . . has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of [the cancellation-of-removal] application[.]”). (The Department of Homeland Security treated the motion to remand as a motion to reopen.) The BIA agreed with the IJ’s ruling on Rangel’s withholding-of- removal and CAT claims. In addition, it distinguished Pereira and, therefore, denied his motion to terminate or remand. In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent it influenced the BIA), our court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The determinations an alien is ineligible for withholding of removal and for CAT relief are factual findings. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). On substantial-evidence review, such factual findings will not be disturbed “unless the court decides not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it”. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals