ESTRADA HERNANDEZ v. BARR (2020)

Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen. Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018), Estrada-Hernandez argues that his notice to appear (NTA) was defective and consequently deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction because it did not state the date and time of his removal proceedings. We have rejected this jurisdictional challenge and concluded that Pereira is limited to the context of the stop-time rule in removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2718, 206 L.Ed.2d 854 (2020); Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2767, 204 L.Ed.2d 1133 (2019). Estrada-Hernandez fails to show that the BIA committed legal error in denying his motion to reopen based on Pereira. See Ka Fung Chan v. INS, 634 F.2d 248, 252 (5th Cir. 1981).

We are without jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada-Hernandez's claim that the BIA should have exercised its discretionary authority to reopen the proceedings sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2017).

DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.