Blanca L. Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 19-11777 Date Filed: 02/13/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11777 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A095-075-256 BLANCA L. RAMOS, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 13, 2020) Before BRANCH, TJOFLAT, and, FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-11777 Date Filed: 02/13/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Blanca Ramos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions us to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen and terminate her removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued Ramos’s notice to appear (“NTA”) in 2009, alleging that she was subject to removal under Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Ramos’s NTA did not include the time and date of her removal proceedings. Ramos now argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review “unless the petitioner has exhausted [her] administrative remedies with respect thereto.” Id.; see also INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right . . . .”). The INA provides that an IJ shall conduct proceedings to determine whether an alien is removable from the United States. INA § 240(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1). The statute does not explicitly state the conditions upon which jurisdiction vests with the IJ, but the Justice Department’s regulations provide that 2 Case: 19-11777 Date Filed: 02/13/2020 Page: 3 of 6 “[j]urisdiction vests . . . when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). For proceedings begun after April 1, 1997, a “charging document” includes an NTA. Id. § 1003.13. The regulations provide that an NTA must contain certain information, including the nature of the proceedings and the charges against the alien. The time and date of the hearing, however, are not required. Id. § 1003.15. Instead, the regulations state that the NTA shall provide the location, time, and date of the initial removal hearing “where practicable,” and that, if the NTA omits that information, the IJ must provide notice of that information to the parties. Id. § 1003.18(b). In Pereira, the Supreme Court considered a question “at the intersection of” § 1229(a), regarding the contents of an NTA, and the “stop-time” rule for cancellation of removal in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2109–10. To be eligible for cancellation of removal, an alien must be continuously physically present in the United States ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals