NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 21-1999 ____________ NICOLAS CHOCOJ-QUINO, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A200-764-844) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) (January 27, 2022) Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: January 31, 2022) ___________ OPINION * ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. Nicolas Chocoj-Quino petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal. We will deny the petition. I1 A native and citizen of Guatemala, Chocoj-Quino entered the United States at an unknown place and time, though he claims he entered in September 1995. In October 2010, the Department of Homeland Security served Chocoj-Quino with a Notice to Appear (NTA), charging him with removability as “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled.” A.R. 314; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (making aliens who are not admitted or paroled inadmissible); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (making aliens who were inadmissible at entry deportable). The NTA directed Chocoj- Quino to appear for his initial hearing in immigration court at a date and time “to be set.” A.R. 314. 2 In his petition, Chocoj-Quino relies on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), to argue that his removal proceedings should have been terminated because the 1 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3); we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision dismissing the appeal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Cruz v. Att’y Gen., 452 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2006). 2 Chocoj-Quino received two Notices to Appear. The first notice was served on him while he was in custody on November 9, 2010. He was released that day or the following day and so a second notice was sent to his last known address on November 10, 2010, which required him to appear on March 8, 2011. He does not dispute he received notices of these hearings and that he did not appear at either. 2 NTA did not include the time and date to appear, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). 3 Our recent decision in Chavez-Chilel v. Attorney General forecloses his argument. 20 F.4th 138, ---, 2021 WL 5830338 (3d Cir. 2021). First, “while § 1229(a) sets forth the type of notice that must be given to a noncitizen and requires an NTA to include a date and time to appear, the absence of that information does not impact the IJ’s authority to act.” Id. at *2 (citing Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 133 (3d Cir. 2019)). Second, “even if [the Petitioner]’s NTA did not comport with the ‘letter’ of § 1229, that statute is akin to a claims-processing rule . . . ‘seek[ing] to promote the orderly progress of litigation.’” Id. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals