Case: 19-14571 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14571 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. A095-163-516 MOHAMMED S. SHAIKH, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 27, 2020) Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-14571 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Mohammed S. Shaikh, proceeding pro se, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his June 2019 motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. In his June 2019 motion to reopen, Shaikh argued, as he had in a June 2018 motion to reopen, that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his immigration proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because his 2007 notice to appear (“NTA”) lacked the time and date of his initial removal hearing. The BIA denied Shaikh’s June 2019 motion to reopen as untimely and also declined to exercise its authority to sua sponte reopen Shaikh’s removal proceedings because it had previously rejected Shaikh’s Pereira arguments in denying his June 2018 motion to reopen. In his petition for review filed with this Court, Shaikh reiterates his Pereira- based arguments about his defective NTA. The government has moved for summary denial of Shaikh’s petition for review and, alternatively, to stay the briefing schedule and for an extension of 30 days in which to file its merits brief. The government points out that Shaikh does not argue that the BIA erred in determining that his June 2019 motion to reopen was untimely, and therefore, he has abandoned any argument to the contrary and his petition for review should be denied on that basis alone. In response, Shaikh again restates his Pereira-based 2 Case: 19-14571 Date Filed: 02/27/2020 Page: 3 of 5 arguments without addressing the timeliness of his June 2019 motion to reopen or why summary disposition is not warranted. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, and any underlying legal determinations de novo. Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 2007). Review of the denial of a motion to reopen is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether that exercise was arbitrary or capricious. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals