USCA11 Case: 20-13201 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 1 of 22 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-13201 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-602-361 JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ RIVERA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 8, 2021) Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: USCA11 Case: 20-13201 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 2 of 22 Jorge Alberto Martinez Rivera, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal.1 He argues that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) did not include the time and date of his removal hearing. Alternatively, he argues that he was denied due process because the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship his U.S. citizen children would suffer upon his removal and because the IJ demonstrated bias at the removal hearing. We address each claim in turn. I. Background On April 23, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Martinez Rivera with an NTA that charged him with being removable as an alien present in the United States who was not admitted or paroled. The NTA did not 1 The Attorney General may cancel the removal of an inadmissible or removable alien and adjust the status of the alien to that of a lawful permanent resident if the alien: (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of [certain specified offenses]; and (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). 2 USCA11 Case: 20-13201 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 3 of 22 specify the date, location, or time of the removal hearing. A few days later, the immigration court mailed Martinez Rivera a notice of hearing with the time, date, and location of the hearing. Thereafter, Martinez Rivera filed a motion to terminate the removal proceedings, arguing that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over the removal proceedings under Pereira because the NTA was deficient as it did not include the date, time, and location of the removal hearing. The IJ denied the motion, concluding that (1) Pereira was limited to the effect of a deficient NTA on the “stop-time rule” for purposes of cancellation of removal, (2) a defective NTA does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, and (3) regardless, the subsequent notice of hearing cured any defect in the NTA. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals