In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18-3251 MARIO ORTIZ-SANTIAGO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A206-788-936 ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 8, 2019 — DECIDED MAY 20, 2019 ____________________ Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SCUDDER and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges. WOOD, Chief Judge. Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has re- minded us, “is a word of many, too many meanings.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 90 (1998) (quoting United States v. Vanness, 85 F.3d 661, 663 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). Petitioner Mario Ortiz-Santiago, who is seeking to avoid re- moval from this country, now asks us to wade into those murky waters. He contends that because the Notice to Appear 2 No. 18-3251 (“Notice”) sent to him by the Department of Homeland Secu- rity (“DHS”) did not have the statutorily required time-and- date information for his removal hearing, subject-matter juris- diction never vested in the Immigration Court. This flaw, he reasons, rendered the Notice so defective that it did not suffice to trigger the Immigration Court’s jurisdiction over his case. Because he never was properly placed in removal proceed- ings, he concludes, the order of removal that the Immigration Judge entered and the Board of Immigration Appeals af- firmed must be vacated. Ortiz-Santiago is correct that the Notice was procedurally defective, but he overstates the problem. The requirement that a Notice include, within its four corners, the time, date, and place of the removal proceeding is not “jurisdictional” in na- ture. It is instead the agency’s version of a claim-processing rule, violations of which can be forfeited if an objection is not raised in a timely manner. We thus hold, as have the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, that an Immigration Court’s juris- diction is secure despite the omission in a Notice of time-and- place information. See Banegas Gomez v. Barr, — F.3d —, No. 15-3269, 2019 WL 1768914, at *6–8 (2d Cir. April 23, 2019); San- tos-Santos v. Barr, 917 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2019); Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019); Hernandez-Perez v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2018). Although we take a dif- ferent path from those circuits to reach this conclusion, we agree that nothing in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), requires a different result. See also Villa Serrano v. Barr, — F.3d —, No. 18-2886, 2019 WL 2052354, at *4 (7th Cir. May 9, 2019) (noting but not deciding this issue). We therefore deny Ortiz- Santiago’s petition for review. No. 18-3251 3 I Ortiz-Santiago is a Mexican citizen who has continuously resided in the United States without legal status since 1999. He is now about 50 years old. In October 2015, he was arrested for driving without a license. Shortly thereafter Immigration and Customs Enforcement served him with a document enti- tled “Notice to Appear” for removal proceedings. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals