Case: 18-13913 Date Filed: 10/31/2019 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13913 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A089-157-290 ETEM ALAJBEGU, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 31, 2019) Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13913 Date Filed: 10/31/2019 Page: 2 of 4 Etem Alajbegu, a native and citizen of Macedonia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to terminate his removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act and dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order of removal. Alajbegu argues that the agency lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the charging document used to commence the proceedings failed to meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Because Alajbegu’s jurisdictional argument is foreclosed by our decision in Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (2019), we deny the petition. I. The Department of Homeland Security charged Alajbegu as removable based on his conviction of a felony crime involving moral turpitude within five years after his admission to the United States. The charging document, a Notice to Appear, ordered Alajbegu to appear for removal proceedings at a place “to be determined” on a date and time “to be set.” Several months later, the government filed a notice of hearing providing the date, time, and location of the removal proceedings. Alajbegu subsequently conceded service of the Notice to Appear, waived a formal reading, and argued the merits of his claims before the immigration judge. He sought relief from removal in the form of an adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(h) of the Immigration and 2 Case: 18-13913 Date Filed: 10/31/2019 Page: 3 of 4 Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The immigration judge denied relief as a matter of discretion and ordered Alajbegu removed. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Alajbegu argued among other things that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings. The Board dismissed Alajbegu’s appeal, and this petition followed. II. The sole issue raised in the petition is whether the incomplete Notice to Appear deprived the immigration judge of jurisdiction. If the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to issue the order of removal, then we also lack jurisdiction to review it. See Perez-Sanchez, 935 F.3d at 1153. We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). We also review the agency’s interpretations of law de novo. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2006). Alejbegu argues that, pursuant to agency regulations, jurisdiction “vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document”—in this case, a Notice to Appear—“is filed with the Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a); see id. § 1003.13. Under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals