Case: 19-12038 Date Filed: 03/11/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12038 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A072-347-641 PEDRO ANTONIO ALVAREZ, a.k.a. Pedro Antonio Alvarez Izquierdo, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 11, 2020) Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12038 Date Filed: 03/11/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Pedro Antonio Alvarez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion for reconsideration and reopening under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)–(7). On appeal, he argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to appear (“NTA”) did not contain the date and place of the proceedings as required by statute. Because our precedent squarely forecloses Alvarez’s argument, we deny his petition. I. On September 21, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served upon Alvarez via regular mail an NTA which ordered him to appear before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in Miami “on a date to be set at a time to be set.” Less than a month later, on October 11, 2006, the immigration court mailed Alvarez a notice of hearing, advising him that his initial hearing before the IJ had been scheduled for September 27, 2007 at 8:30 AM. Alvarez appeared before the IJ at that time. The removal proceedings concluded on June 3, 2009, when the IJ issued a written decision ordering Alvarez to be removed to Cuba. Although Alvarez initially appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, he later voluntarily moved to dismiss his appeal, which the BIA granted on July 6, 2010. More than five years later, on November 23, 2015, Alvarez filed with the BIA a “motion to reopen sua sponte previously dismissed appeal,” which the BIA 2 Case: 19-12038 Date Filed: 03/11/2020 Page: 3 of 6 rejected. On April 20, 2016, Alvarez filed with the BIA a “motion to reopen/reconsider,” which the BIA also denied. Undeterred, on July 15, 2018, Alvarez filed with the BIA a “statutory motion to reconsider and terminate in light of [Pereira 1], motion to reconsider in light of [Dimaya2], [and a] motion to reopen based upon new evidence.” Relevant here, Alvarez argued that the BIA should grant reconsideration and terminate his removal proceedings in light of Pereira because his NTA did not specify the time and date of his initial removal hearing. On April 30, 2019, the BIA issued a decision denying reconsideration and reopening under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)−(7) and declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reconsider or reopen Alvarez’s removal proceedings. As to Alvarez’s request for reconsideration in light of Pereira, the BIA concluded that his arguments were foreclosed as a matter of law because the omission of the time and date of his initial removal hearing was “not a jurisdictional defect.” Alvarez appealed the BIA’s order denying his motion. On appeal, Alvarez challenges ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals