NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-3592 ___________ JEAN CARLOS BAUTISTA-MESCUA, a/ka/ Jean Carlos Bautista, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-015-679) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ____________________________________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 29, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, Circuit Judges, and GREENBERG, Senior Judge (Filed: June 30, 2020) OPINION * KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Bautista-Mescua presents a single issue for review: Whether the immigration courts are deprived of jurisdiction over the case of a petitioner who receives a notice to appear that is defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). As Bautista-Mescua acknowledges, we have already held that they are not. Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 132-34 (3d Cir. 2019). Bautista-Mescua’s sole challenge to his order of removal therefore fails because “the holding of a panel in a precedential opinion is binding on subsequent panels.” See Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Policy of Avoiding Intra-circuit Conflict of Precedent, Internal Operating Procedures of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals § 9.1). For that reason, we will affirm the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 2 19-3592 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ca3 3rd Cir. Jean Bautista-Mescua v. Attorney General United States 30 June 2020 Unpublished 5f78b1d56a51afc2aa8106ace16daa8bf74c9040
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals