NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0068n.06 Case No. 19-3563 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 30, 2020 JIAN CHEN, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE BOARD OF ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) OPINION Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Few cases are more straightforward than this. Chen concedes that binding precedent now controls his case. So we deny his petition for review. Jian Chen last entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in 2001 and never left. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice to appear, claiming that Chen was subject to removal for entering into a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration laws in violation of Section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This notice informed Chen that he had to appear “on a date to be set at a time to be set” for a hearing. (A.R. 1491.) Two months later, the Immigration Court sent Chen a hearing notice containing the date and time of his hearing. DHS added a later charge of removability against Chen for overstaying his visa and withdrew the fraudulent marriage charge. Chen admitted the factual allegations against him and conceded removability for overstaying his visa. No. 19-3563, Chen v. Barr Chen then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied these claims and entered an order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Chen’s appeal. And this Court denied his petition for review. Chen v. Holder, No. 14-3049 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2014) (order denying petition for review). In 2018, Chen moved to reopen removal proceedings. Inadmissible or deportable aliens may be eligible for cancellation of removal if, among other factors, they have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of ten years. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). This period, however, stops running when DHS serves the alien with a notice to appear. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). In Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court held that a notice to appear that does not set out the date and time of the alien’s DHS hearing cannot trigger the “stop-time rule.” 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2115–16 (2018). So Chen argued that because the initial notice to appear that DHS served him with lacked the date and time of his hearing, the “stop-time rule” was never triggered and he was eligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA denied Chen’s petition under its own precedent, which holds that later notice of the date and time of an alien’s hearing cures the initial notice’s failure to contain this information. See Mendoza-Hernandez & Capula-Cortes, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520, 529 (B.I.A. 2019) (en banc). Chen then filed this appeal, arguing that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. A recent opinion by this court, Garcia-Romo v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals