NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-2184 ______ LETY MARIBEL PEREZ-MORALES; R.E.R.-P.; D.Y.R.-P.; D.C.R.-P., Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A206-903-303, A206-903-305, A206-903-306 and A206-903-307) Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 16, 2020 Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 2, 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. PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. Lety Maribel Perez-Morales and her minor children, all natives and citizens of Guatemala, entered the United States through Brownsville, Texas, without admission or parole in March 2015. The same day of their entry, the Department of Homeland Security served them with notices to appear for regular removal proceedings. Those notices indicated that the removal proceedings would take place in Immigration Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, “on a date to be set at a time to be set.” AR 595, 670, 745, 820. In June 2015, the Immigration Court mailed Perez-Morales and her children the date and time for the hearing: July 16, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. Perez-Morales and her children were represented at that hearing – and all later hearings. At those hearings, they sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, all based on their experiences in Guatemala. After considering their case, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found them removable and ineligible for relief. Perez-Morales and her children appealed that determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the BIA) on two grounds. They disputed the IJ’s jurisdiction over the removal proceedings on the theory that the notices to appear were defective because those notices did not specify the date and time of the removal proceedings. Perez- Morales and her children also challenged the substance of the IJ’s removal rulings. The BIA determined that the IJ had jurisdiction, and it affirmed the IJ’s determination. Perez-Morales and her children timely petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision. Here, they raise only the jurisdictional challenge, which we have jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). In exercising de novo review over that legal issue, see Roye v. 2 Att’y Gen., 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012), we reject the jurisdictional challenge and will deny the petition. This jurisdictional challenge is inspired by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a notice to appear without a date and time for the hearing does not stop the continuous ten- year period for cancellation of removal. See id. at 2110. Perez-Morales and her children argue that the holding in Pereira for the stop-time rule should apply to the jurisdiction of the Immigration Court so that a notice to appear without a date and time for the hearing would not bring the removal proceedings within ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals