Opinion
19-157 NAC
09-01-2020
AI FU JIN, JIAN LE LI, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
FOR PETITIONERS: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges.
FOR PETITIONERS:
Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ.
FOR RESPONDENT:
Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioners Ai Fu Jin and Jian Le Li, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China, seek review of a December 21, 2018, decision of the BIA denying their motion to reconsider and terminate removal proceedings. In re Ai Fu Jin, Jian Le Li, Nos. A077 927 566/568 (BIA Dec. 21, 2018). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
We review the BIA's denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Petitioners' argument that their removal proceedings should be terminated pursuant to Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners argued that their notices to appear ("NTA") did not include a hearing date and time and thus were insufficient to commence removal proceedings. We have held, however, "that an NTA that omits information regarding the time and date of the initial removal hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the Immigration Court, at least so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien." Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 112 (2d Cir. 2019). Although Petitioners' NTAs did not specify the date and time of their initial hearing, they unquestionably received notice of their hearings at which they appeared. Accordingly, their argument that their removal order should be reconsidered and proceedings terminated is foreclosed by Banegas Gomez.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court