Filed: Aug. 04, 2021
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2021
Case: 19-60919 Document: 00515965150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 4, 2021
No. 19-60919 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jorge Alexander Arevalo-Martinez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 133 068
Before Stewart, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jorge Alexander Arevalo-Martinez petitions for review an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), arguing that the immigration court
lacked jurisdiction and that he did not receive proper notice of his initial
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 19-60919 Document: 00515965150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 19-60919
removal proceeding. Since the BIA’s decision rests on substantial evidence,
the petition for review is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jorge Alexander Arevalo-Martinez is a native and citizen of El
Salvador. He entered the United States without inspection on or about
September 9, 2005, near Eagle Pass, Texas. He was apprehended by border
patrol agents on the same day, and he was released on his own recognizance
the next day.
On September 11, 2005, Arevalo-Martinez was personally served with
a notice to appear (“NTA”) that did not contain the date and time of his
removal hearing. The NTA stated that Arevalo was “required to provide the
INS, in writing, with [his] full mailing address and telephone number.” The
NTA warned Arevalo-Martinez that if he failed to provide an address, the
Government “[was] not [] required to provide [him] with written notice of
[his] hearing.” Arevalo-Martinez signed the NTA and waived his right to a
10-day waiting period prior to his hearing. Shortly after his release, Arevalo-
Martinez left Texas and moved to California to be with his pregnant
girlfriend.
On November 16, 2005, DHS commenced removal proceedings
against Arevalo-Martinez by filing an NTA charging him as removable under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Arevalo-Martinez did not appear at the hearing.
On November 30, 2005, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) entered an in absentia
removal order against Arevalo-Martinez and indicated that notice of the
removal hearing “was not given to the respondent because the respondent
failed to provide the court with his[] address as required . . . .” The IJ ordered
Arevalo-Martinez removed to El Salvador.
On August 18, 2018, ICE detained Arevalo-Martinez. He filed a
motion to vacate the in absentia order and terminate proceedings. A different
2
Case: 19-60919 Document: 00515965150 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 19-60919
IJ granted Arevalo-Martinez’s motion to vacate the order and terminated the
removal proceedings on August 22, 2018. The DHS did not oppose the
motion, but it appealed the decision to the BIA.
The BIA sustained the appeal and affirmed the November 2005
absentia order of removal, concluding that Arevalo-Martinez failed to
provide his address as required and was thus not entitled to notice of his
removal hearing. The BIA further noted that Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct.
2105 (2018), does not support termination of the proceedings considering
Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I & N Dec. 441, 447 (BIA 2018), wherein the
BIA held that a NTA without a date and time does vest the IJ with jurisdiction
as long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the
alien. This appeal follows.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The IJ’s and the BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). The substantial
evidence standard requires that the decision (1) be based on the evidence
presented and (2) be substantially reasonable. Sharma v. Holder,
729 F.3d
407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Under the substantial evidence standard, this court
may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence “compels” such a
reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder,
569 F.3d 531, 536–37
(5th Cir. 2009). It is the petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the evidence
compels a contrary conclusion. Zhao v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir.
2005). Legal questions are reviewed de novo. Zhu,
493 F.3d at 594.
III. DISCUSSION
Arevalo-Martinez argues that the BIA erred in affirming the 2005
order of removal because the NTA from September 11, 2005 omitted the date
3
Case: 19-60919 Document: 00515965150 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 19-60919
and time of his hearing 1 and was therefore defective. Since the NTA was
defective, he contends that the IJ did not have jurisdiction to enter the order
for an in-absentia removal and that he did not have proper notice of his
removal proceedings. We disagree.
A. IJ’s Jurisdiction
The IJ’s authority to conduct removal proceedings begins when a
“charging document” is filed with the immigration court. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.14(a). “[A] notice to appear is sufficient to commence proceedings
even if it does not include the time, date, or place of the initial hearing.”
Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 693 (5th Cir. 2019), cert denied,
140 S. Ct.
2718 (2020), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland,
141
S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Under Pierre-Paul, the September 2005 NTA was
sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the immigration court even though the
NTA failed to include the time and date for Arevalo-Martinez’s hearing.
In Arevalo-Martinez’s view, Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018),
alters the analysis and supports the termination of his removal proceedings.
Title 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) allows the Attorney General to cancel the
removal of a nonpermanent resident if the person has, inter alia, “been
physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less
than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application.” That
continuous period terminates when the nonpermanent resident “is served a
notice to appear under section 1229(a) . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A). In
Pereira, the Court held that a purported notice to appeal that “fails to specify
either the time or place of [] removal proceedings” does not trigger the stop-
time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(d)(1)(A). Pereira,
138 S. Ct. at 2110.
1
Arevalo-Martinez incorrectly claims that the NTA omitted the location of his
hearing as well. The location is printed on the NTA.
4
Case: 19-60919 Document: 00515965150 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 19-60919
Arevalo-Martinez argues that the same principle applies here, namely
that the September 2005 NTA was defective because it omitted the date and
time of his hearing. Though he argues that Pereira altered NTA requirements
from Pierre-Paul, Pierre-Paul was decided in light of and after Pereira. See
Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 689–690. We have already rejected the argument that
Arevalo-Martinez now presents. See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 690. (“Even
though [the] notice to appear did not include the time and date of [the] initial
hearing, the regulations do not require this information.”). We also find it
instructive that “the overwhelming chorus of our sister circuits [] have
already rejected similar Pereira-based challenges.” Id. at 689.
Even if Arevalo-Martinez is correct that his NTA was deficient, we
have already determined that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 is a claim-processing rule
rather than a jurisdictional bar. Id. at 691. Arevalo-Martinez’s argument that
the September 2005 NTA did not confer jurisdiction on the IJ is therefore
incorrect.
B. Notice
Arevalo-Martinez next argues that even if the IJ had jurisdiction, his
removal proceedings should be terminated because he did not receive proper
notice. We disagree.
Title 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b) instructs that an NTA should include “the
time, place and date of the initial removal hearing, where practicable” but
“[n]o such notice shall be required for an alien not in detention if the alien
has failed to provide the address required . . . .” Moreover, “if the alien fails
to provide a mailing address in accordance with the statutory requirements,
he is not entitled to written notice of his removal hearing.” Mauricio-Benitez
v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 2018).
The record indicates that Arevalo-Martinez did not provide a mailing
address. Though he now claims that he provided an address that he cannot
5
Case: 19-60919 Document: 00515965150 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 19-60919
recall, we conclude that the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
6
