18-2595 Bao v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A087 441 647 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 19th day of February, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YUE YE BAO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2595 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 28 Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Yue Ye Bao, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 14, 11 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a November 1, 2013 decision 12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bao’s application for 13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yue Ye Bao, No. 15 A087 441 647 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A087 441 647 16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 1, 2013). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 Validity of Removal Proceedings 19 Bao first argues that, under the Supreme Court’s decision 20 in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the Notice to 21 Appear (“NTA”) charging her as removable was insufficient to 22 vest jurisdiction with the IJ because it did not contain a 23 hearing date or time. We have held, however, that Pereira 24 does not “void jurisdiction in cases in which an NTA omits a 2 1 hearing time or place . . . so long as a notice of hearing 2 specifying this information is later sent to the alien.” 3 Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2019). 4 Accordingly, because Bao unquestionably received notice of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals