Jin v. Barr
This text of Jin v. Barr (Jin v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
19-157 Jin v. Barr BIA A077 927 566/568
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 1st day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AI FU JIN, JIAN LE LI, 14 Petitioners, 15 16 v. 19-157 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONERS: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Virginia Lum, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioners Ai Fu Jin and Jian Le Li, natives and
6 citizens of the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a
7 December 21, 2018, decision of the BIA denying their motion
8 to reconsider and terminate removal proceedings. In re Ai
9 Fu Jin, Jian Le Li, Nos. A077 927 566/568 (BIA Dec. 21, 2018).
10 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
11 and procedural history.
12 We review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration for abuse
13 of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109,
14 111 (2d Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in
15 rejecting Petitioners’ argument that their removal
16 proceedings should be terminated pursuant to Pereira v.
17 Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). Petitioners argued that
18 their notices to appear (“NTA”) did not include a hearing
19 date and time and thus were insufficient to commence removal
20 proceedings. We have held, however, “that an NTA that omits
21 information regarding the time and date of the initial removal
2 1 hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the
2 Immigration Court, at least so long as a notice of hearing
3 specifying this information is later sent to the alien.”
4 Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 112 (2d Cir. 2019).
5 Although Petitioners’ NTAs did not specify the date and time
6 of their initial hearing, they unquestionably received notice
7 of their hearings at which they appeared. Accordingly, their
8 argument that their removal order should be reconsidered and
9 proceedings terminated is foreclosed by Banegas Gomez.
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
12 stays VACATED.
13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 15 Clerk of Court 16
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jin v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jin-v-barr-ca2-2020.