BLD-042 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-2034 ___________ HENRY PRATT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A075-555-747) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter A. Durling ____________________________________ Submitted on Respondent’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 14, 2019 Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed December 5, 2019) _________ OPINION* _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Henry Pratt petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his latest motion to reopen and reconsider. On the Government’s motion, we will summarily deny his petition. I. Pratt is a citizen of Liberia who previously received asylum in 2002 and who later adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident. In 2015, he was convicted on Pennsylvania charges of forgery and access-device fraud. The Government then charged him as removable on the ground that his offenses constituted crimes involving moral turpitude. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained the charge and denied Pratt’s applications for relief. The BIA dismissed his appeal on the merits, and we denied his counseled petition for review. See Pratt v. Att’y Gen., 779 F. App’x 867 (3d Cir. 2019) (C.A. No. 18-1573). Before our ruling, Pratt filed a number of motions to reopen and reconsider with the BIA. He filed two such motions that the BIA denied on June 4, 2018, and another such motion that the BIA denied on August 22, 2018. Pratt did not seek review of those rulings. Instead, he filed still another motion to reopen and reconsider with the BIA. The BIA denied that motion as well on April 24, 2019, and Pratt now petitions for review of that ruling. The Government has filed a motion for summary action.1 1 The Government filed its motion after Pratt filed his brief on the merits, and Pratt later 2 II. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s denial of reopening and reconsideration only for abuse of discretion. See Pllumi v. Att’y Gen., 642 F.3d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 2011). We perceive none here. Pratt raised a number of arguments in his motion but only three require discussion on review. First, Pratt argued that his removal proceeding should be terminated because his notice to appear was defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The BIA rejected that argument on the basis of In re Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 2018). We later agreed with Bermudez-Cota in concluding that a notice to appear that is defective under Pereira for purposes of the “stop time” rule applicable to cancellation of removal does not deprive IJs of jurisdiction. See Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 133-34 (3d Cir. 2019). Pratt acknowledges Nkomo but ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals