NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 19-1954 _____________ C. A. H.; F. A. A.; K. L. A. A.; Y. A. A. A.; E. A. A., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A208-311-923, A208-311-924, A208-311-925 A208-311-926 and A208-311-927) Immigration Judge: Hon. John B. Carle _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 17, 2020 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: January 23, 2020) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. C.A.H. and her four minor children petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion for reconsideration. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion, we will deny the petition for review. I. BACKGROUND C.A.H. and her four minor children are Mexican nationals who entered the United States at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in August 2015. Three days later, the Department of Homeland Security served each of them with a document titled “Notice to Appear.” None of those documents stated the date and time they were scheduled to appear. Instead, the notices instructed them to appear at the Immigration Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania “on a date to be set” and “at a time to be set.” (See, e.g., A.R. at 525.) On the same day, C.A.H. was also charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) for being present in the United States without valid entry documents. Two months later, C.A.H. and her children received additional notices of hearing setting the date and time of the hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ.”) They appeared as scheduled. At her individual hearing, C.A.H. timely filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture on behalf of herself and her children. After reviewing the record, which included the testimony of C.A.H. and her oldest daughter, the IJ ordered C.A.H. and her children removed. 2 C.A.H.1 filed a timely appeal to the BIA, which was denied in August 2017. She then filed a petition for review, which we dismissed. C.A.H. v. Att’y Gen., 767 F. App’x 265, 271 (3d Cir. 2019). In July of 2018, almost a year after the BIA issued its decision in her case, C.A.H. filed a motion asking the BIA to reconsider that decision in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Pereira held that a Notice to Appear must include the date and time of the hearing before the IJ in order to trigger the stop-time rule in immigration proceedings. Id. at 2113-14. In March 2019, the Board exercised its discretion to deny as untimely C.A.H.’s motion to reconsider. This petition for review followed. II. DISCUSSION2 “We review a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals