Case: 20-60867 Document: 00516347019 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 7, 2022 No. 20-60867 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Lud Maday Aleman-Garcia; Erika Fernanda Torres- Aleman, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 848 811 BIA No. A206 848 812 Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Lud Maday Aleman-Garcia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of both her motion to terminate * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60867 Document: 00516347019 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2022 No. 20-60867 proceedings and her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Included in her application as a derivative beneficiary is her daughter, Erika Fernanda Torres-Aleman. According to Aleman-Garcia, the BIA should have terminated her removal proceedings for lack of jurisdiction in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2109-10 (2018), because her notice to appear did not include the time and date of her removal hearing. In denying her motion to terminate, the BIA reasoned that Aleman-Garcia’s argument was foreclosed by Pierre- Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2019). While the Pierre-Paul decision has since been abrogated in part by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1479-80 (2021), we recently explained that “Niz-Chavez does not dislodge our ultimate holding in Pierre-Paul” that the regulatory provision of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 governs “‘what a notice to appear must contain to constitute a valid charging document.’” Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693). Accordingly, there is no merit to Aleman-Garcia’s jurisdictional challenge, since, under § 1003.14, a notice to appear “is sufficient to commence proceedings even if it does not include the time, date, or place of the initial hearing.” Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693; see Maniar, 998 F.3d at 242 n.2 (confirming that this holding in Pierre-Paul “remains the law of our circuit”). Additionally, Aleman-Garcia asserts that the BIA erred in denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The factual determinations underpinning the ultimate conclusion of whether an alien is eligible for such relief are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, the BIA’s factual findings may not be reversed unless the alien shows that “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 2 Case: 20-60867 Document: 00516347019 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2022 No. 20-60867 could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-37 (quote at …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals