USCA11 Case: 19-11848 Date Filed: 03/11/2021 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11848 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A089-505-983 HANI AJAJ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 11, 2021) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 19-11848 Date Filed: 03/11/2021 Page: 2 of 6 Hani Ajaj petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reconsider its dismissal of the immigration judge’s order denying Ajaj’s motion to rescind his order of removal and to reopen his case sua sponte. Ajaj argues that the immigration judge didn’t have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because of a defect in the notice to appear, and we should therefore remand the case for the board to terminate his removal order. Because Ajaj’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General, 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019), we deny his petition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ajaj entered the United States on a visa in 2005 and remained after his visa expired in March 2006. In December 2008, Ajaj was served with a notice to appear before an immigration judge in Miami, but his notice failed to specify the date or time of his hearing. Three hearings followed in 2009. Ajaj received a notice for and attended the first hearing. At that hearing, he received a notice for a second hearing, which he attended with counsel. At the second hearing, Ajaj admitted to the factual allegations in the notice to appear and conceded removability. Ajaj also received notice for a third hearing, but he failed to appear at that hearing, and the immigration judge ordered his removal in absentia. Nearly eight years later, Ajaj—at that point married to a United States citizen, expecting a second child, and still living in the United States with an expired visa— 2 USCA11 Case: 19-11848 Date Filed: 03/11/2021 Page: 3 of 6 moved to rescind the removal order and reopen his case sua sponte. The immigration judge denied the motion as untimely and because Ajaj didn’t provide a reasonable justification for the eight-year delay. Ajaj appealed that decision to the board, which dismissed the appeal. After the Supreme Court decided Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Ajaj moved for the board “to reconsider” its earlier dismissal of his appeal and to “terminate” his removal proceedings “in light of Pereira.” The board denied that motion because, although the initial notice to appear lacked the time or date of the hearing, later notices met the statutory requirements. Ajaj now petitions for review of the board’s decision to this court. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the board’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). DISCUSSION Ajaj argues that the board erred when it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals