Yong Le CHEN, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent.*
Petitioner Yong Le Chen, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Yong Le Chen, No. A XXX XX9 935 (B.I.A. July 11, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen's motion to reopen. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion). Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2114, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018), Chen argued that his notice to appear (“NTA”), which did not contain a hearing date and time, was inadequate to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court. Our decision in Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110–12 (2d Cir. 2019), forecloses this argument. See In re Zarnel, 619 F.3d 156, 168 (2d Cir. 2010) (“This panel is bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). An NTA that does not provide the date and time of the hearing vests jurisdiction with the immigration court if the noncitizen receives a subsequent hearing notice with the missing information. Banegas Gomez, 922 F.3d at 110–12. Although Chen's NTA did not contain the time and date of his initial hearing, he received subsequent hearing notices and appeared at his hearings.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.