Case: 20-60666 Document: 00516149438 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-60666 December 30, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Ronal Lima-Gonzalez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 951 517 Before Smith, Graves, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ronal Lima-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings and rescind the in absentia order of removal entered by the immigration judge (IJ). * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60666 Document: 00516149438 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 No. 20-60666 On June 26, 2002, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service served Lima-Gonzalez with a putative notice to appear (NTA), asserting he was removable because he was present in the United States without admission or parole. The NTA directed Lima-Gonzalez to appear at a removal hearing at a time, date, and location to be determined. The immigration court later served several notices of hearing either to Lima- Gonzalez personally or by mail to an attorney named Hugo Florido. The final notice of hearing, which was mailed to Florido, reset Lima-Gonzalez’s proceedings for 8:30 a.m. on November 25, 2002, in Houston, Texas. Lima- Gonzalez did not appear at the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. On January 16, 2018, Lima-Gonzalez moved to reopen proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order on the grounds that he never received proper notice of the hearing. The IJ denied the motion, explaining that the superseding notice of hearing was served on Lima-Gonzalez through his then-attorney. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). On appeal to the BIA, Lima- Gonzalez argued, inter alia, that he was eligible for cancellation of removal under Pereira because the NTA was insufficient to trigger the so-called “stop-time” rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) and he had accordingly established more than 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. The BIA disagreed, stating that the notices of hearing, in combination with the NTA, triggered the stop-time rule. In considering the BIA’s decision, factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo, giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of any ambiguous immigration statutes. See Orellano- Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). 2 Case: 20-60666 Document: 00516149438 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 No. 20-60666 Lima-Gonzalez first argues that the BIA abused its discretion in interpreting the immigration statutes and finding that Florido was his “counsel of record” authorized to receive notice on his behalf under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A). Lima-Gonzalez failed to raise …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals