FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 3, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court HENRY JAVIER CRUZ MORENO, Petitioner, v. No. 19-9507 (Petition for Review) WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Henry Javier Cruz Moreno seeks review of a final order of removal, claiming that under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the immigration judge (IJ) lacked jurisdiction to conduct removal proceedings. We deny the petition for review. I Moreno is a Honduran national who entered the United States in 2004. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued him a Notice to Appear * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. (NTA) in removal proceedings, charging him with being present in this country without lawful admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The NTA did not specify the date or time of his initial hearing, but DHS later provided the omitted information by serving him a Notice of Hearing. When Moreno appeared before the IJ, he conceded he was removable and requested voluntary departure, though he quickly acknowledged he was ineligible for that relief. Thus, he simply requested a removal order and indicated he waived his right to appeal. The IJ accordingly ordered him removed to Honduras. Following the IJ’s decision, however, Moreno filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In his notice he asserted that, under Pereira, “the [IJ] had no jurisdiction to enter orders against [him] due to a defective Notice to Appear.” Admin. R. at 7. He also indicated he would file a brief with the BIA, though he never did. Consequently, when the BIA took up his case, it ruled that he waived his right to appeal. The BIA nonetheless proceeded to consider and reject Moreno’s assertion that the IJ lacked jurisdiction under Pereira, ruling: [T]he Supreme Court described the dispositive question presented in Pereira as “narrow” and related to whether the “stop-time” rule that is applicable to cancellation of removal applications would be triggered by a[n] NTA that lacked specific information about the time and location of the hearing. Pereira did not hold that a[n] NTA that did not contain a specific date, time, and location of the hearing was invalid for all purposes or did not validly initiate removal proceedings. See Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 2018). Admin. R. at 3. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals