NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 19-2555 ______________ JOSE GUZMAN-BEDOLLA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1: A205-009-566) Immigration Judge: Steven Morley ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 14, 2020 BEFORE: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges (Filed: March 17, 2020) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Jose Guzman-Bedolla petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen proceedings. Guzman- Bedolla contends that, given the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the BIA erred by not reopening the proceedings against him because the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction over his case. The question presented is one that we have answered before: “whether a notice to appear that fails to specify the time and place of an initial removal hearing deprives an immigration judge of jurisdiction over the removal proceedings.” Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 131 (3d Cir. 2019). Just as we held in Nkomo, we hold now that it does not. The Immigration Court still had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the lack of information in the Notice to Appear. In addition, the BIA has broad discretion to reopen removal proceedings. It denied Guzman-Bedolla’s motion to reopen, and we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. Accordingly, we will dismiss Guzman-Bedolla’s petition for review. I. BACKGROUND Guzman-Bedolla is a citizen of Mexico who initially entered the United States without inspection on April 15, 1996. A.R. at 774. On October 3, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) commenced removal proceedings against Guzman- Bedolla by serving him with a “Notice to Appear.” A.R. at 775. This document, however, did not specify the date and time Guzman-Bedolla was scheduled to appear, but rather instructed him to appear at the Immigration Court in York, Pennsylvania “on a date to be set” and “at a time to be set.” A.R. at 774. By order dated October 21, 2011, the 2 Immigration Judge originally assigned to the case transferred the venue to the Immigration Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A.R. at 764. Beginning on November 4, 2011, Guzman-Bedolla began receiving additional notices to appear informing him of the date and time of master hearings before the Immigration Court. A.R. at 762. On April 4, 2016, Immigration Judge Morley conducted a merits hearing. A.R. at 183–258. On June 22, 2017, Immigration Judge Morley denied Guzman-Bedolla’s applications for relief. A.R. at 100–14. Guzman- Bedolla timely appealed. A.R. at 95–98. On July 17, 2018, the BIA affirmed the Immigration Court’s decision. A.R. at 52–54. On November 13, 2018, Guzman-Bedolla filed a motion to reopen. A.R. at 14. He based that motion on (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira and (2) an increase in the number ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals