NAVA ANDRADE v. BARR (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Alejandro Nava-Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a September 27, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a September 20, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering Nava-Andrade removed. In re Nava-Andrade, No. A 205 021 480 (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 021 480 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Sept. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Nava-Andrade’s argument that the agency lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to appear (“NTA”) did not include a hearing date is foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110–12 (2d Cir. 2019). In that case, we held 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.” Id. at 112. Nava-Andrade’s NTA indicated the location of his first hearing, and, on the same day, he also received a hearing notice that specified the time and date of the hearing. Both notices certified that Nava-Andrade was personally served, he does not argue that he did not receive the documents, and he appeared at his hearings.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED and Nava-Andrade’s stay motion is DENIED as moot.