United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3508 ___________________________ Paula Osorio Tino; Elias Daniel Juares-Osorio; Jenifer Angelica Juares-Osorio lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: June 2, 2021 Filed: September 20, 2021 [Published] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemala native and citizen Paula Osorio Tino, individually and on behalf of her minor children Elias Daniel Juares-Osorio and Jenifer Angelica Juares-Osorio, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her request to terminate the proceedings based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 As a preliminary matter, this court’s precedent forecloses Osorio Tino’s argument, based on Pereira, that the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction over her proceedings because her Notice to Appear (NTA) was deficient. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019) (concluding that Pereira decided a “narrow” issue relating to the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal and “had nothing to say” about when an immigration judge obtains jurisdiction over removal proceedings; jurisdiction vests when a charging document (such as a NTA) is filed with the immigration court; and a NTA need only provide time, place, and date information “where practicable” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b)); see also Rodriguez de Henriquez v. Barr, 942 F.3d 444, 446 (8th Cir. 2019).2 1 Because the minor children’s asylum applications are derivative of their mother’s application, all references are to Osorio Tino. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (child may be granted asylum if accompanying principal noncitizen was granted asylum). There are no derivative benefits for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Fuentes v. Barr, 969 F.3d 865, 868 n.1 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). 2 In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), the Court addressed an issue left open in Pereira, namely, whether a notice that did not include the date and time of the hearing coupled with a later notice of date and time could invoke the stop- time rule. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the Court held separate documents did not trigger the stop-time rule; all the information needed to be included in one document. The Fifth Circuit recently held Niz-Chavez did not disturb existing circuit precedent regarding jurisdictional requirements. See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021). We agree with the Fifth Circuit and do not interpret Niz-Chavez as disturbing our jurisdiction-related precedent. See also United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 3 F.4th 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2021); United States v. Vasquez Florez, 2021 WL 3615366 at *2 n.3 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (per curiam). -2- Having reviewed the record, we conclude the agency properly denied Osorio Tino’s asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals