18-1659 Coreas-Alvarado v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 687 871 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 14th day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 José A. Cabranes, 8 Susan L. Carney, 9 Richard J. Sullivan, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DUGLAS SEBASTIAN COREAS-ALVARADO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1659 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Kennji Kizuka, Esq., Human Rights 25 First, New York, NY. 26 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Mary Jane Candaux, 3 Assistant Director; Stephanie E. 4 Beckett, Trial Attorney; Michael 5 Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of 8 Justice, Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Duglas Sebastian Coreas-Alvarado, a native 14 and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 8, 2018 15 decision of the BIA affirming a July 7, 2017 decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Coreas-Alvarado’s 17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Duglas 19 Sebastian Coreas-Alvarado, No. A 206 687 871 (B.I.A. May 8, 20 2018), aff’g No. A 206 687 871 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 7, 21 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22 underlying facts and procedural history. 23 Coreas-Alvarado argues that the immigration court lacked 24 jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice 25 to appear did not include the time and date of his hearing. 26 Our decision in Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110 (2d 2 1 Cir. 2019), forecloses this argument. “[A]n NTA that omits 2 information regarding the time and date of the initial removal 3 hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the 4 Immigration Court, at least so long as a notice of hearing 5 specifying this information is later sent to the alien.” Id. 6 at 112. Coreas-Alvarado was served with a hearing notice and 7 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals