USCA11 Case: 20-10875 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10875 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A028-550-927 JOSE FRANCISCO LORENZO, a.k.a. Domingo Francisco Mateo, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 16, 2021) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Jose Francisco Lorenzo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reconsider, USCA11 Case: 20-10875 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 2 of 10 which argued that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen and terminate removal. Ten years after entering the United States without admission, the Department of Homeland Security issued him a notice to appear (“NTA”), alleging he was subject to removability under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), (7)(A)(i)(I). The NTA did not identify the time or date of the removal proceedings. Lorenzo now argues that the agency lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings under the reasoning of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because his NTA failed to set forth the time and place of his removal hearing. The BIA rejected his petition as number barred, as well as in conflict with Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because we agree with the BIA that Lorenzo’s jurisdictional challenge is foreclosed by our precedent, we deny his petition. I. BACKGROUND Lorenzo, a citizen of Guatemala, originally entered the United States in 2001. DHS initiated removal proceedings against Lorenzo in 2011. His initial NTA included the location of his removal hearing, but not the time and date. A subsequent notice set the date and time of the hearing. He appeared both at that hearing and at a later hearing where, represented by counsel, he admitted he had entered the United States without permission. After this admission, Lorenzo filed an application for cancellation of removal. Lorenzo and his wife, who is also from Guatemala, have four children 2 USCA11 Case: 20-10875 Date Filed: 02/16/2021 Page: 3 of 10 who are United States citizens. Lorenzo provides income for the family, and his wife takes care of their children. In his removal hearing, he argued that his deportation would cause undue hardship to his U.S. citizen children. After the hearing, the immigration judge (“IJ”) determined that Lorenzo was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he had not shown that his children would suffer exceptional hardship if he was removed to Guatemala. The BIA affirmed this decision, and Lorenzo did not file a petition seeking review of the BIA decision. Lorenzo then moved to reopen his removal proceedings to provide additional evidence of the hardship his deportation would pose to his children. Lorenzo’s six-year-old son has Ventricular Septal Defect (“VSD”). VSD is a congenital heart disease that requires frequent monitoring and could eventually require open heart surgery. In his motion to reopen, Lorenzo argued that moving his son to Guatemala would be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals