Case: 19-13666 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13666 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-295-652 AMPARO M. CASTANEDA GUANUME, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 13, 2020) Before JORDAN, LAGOA and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Amparo Castaneda Guanume petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reconsider and terminate removal Case: 19-13666 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 2 of 5 proceedings in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The Government has moved for summary denial of Guanume’s petition and to stay the briefing schedule. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “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). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). We are bound by a prior panel opinion, even if it was wrongly decided, until the opinion’s holding is overruled by the Supreme Court or our Court sitting en banc. See United States v. Golden, 854 F.3d 1256, 1257 (11th Cir. 2017). In Pereira, the Supreme Court considered a question “at the intersection of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), regarding the contents of a notice to appear, and the “stop-time” rule for cancellation of removal in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2109-10. The Supreme Court concluded that a putative notice to appear that does not specify either the time or place of the removal proceedings does not trigger the stop-time rule and thus does not end the alien’s continuous physical presence in the 2 Case: 19-13666 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 3 of 5 United States for purposes of cancellation of removal eligibility. Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2110. The Supreme Court reasoned that a “putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),’ and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.” Id. at 2113-14 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)). Although the Supreme Court in Pereira stated that it was deciding only a “narrow question” about an eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal, it also acknowledged that the notice to appear flaw present in the case—the failure to specify the time or place of the removal hearing—was present in nearly every notice to appear that had been issued in recent years. Id. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals