Judith Gonzalez Rivera v. William Barr, U. S. Atty ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60052 Document: 00515575407 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 23, 2020
No. 19-60052
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Judith Marisol Gonzalez Rivera,
Petitioner,
versus
William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 988 808
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Judith Marisol Gonzalez Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing her appeal from an order of removal. Relying primarily on Pereira
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60052 Document: 00515575407 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2020
No. 19-60052
v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Gonzalez Rivera argues that her Notice to
Appear was not a valid charging document because it failed to state the time
and date for her removal proceedings. She contends that these deficiencies
rendered the NTA invalid, thereby depriving the immigration court of
subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
We recently rejected the argument that an NTA without a time and
date eliminates subject-matter jurisdiction. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d
684 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2020 WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (No.
19-779). In accordance with the governing regulations, an NTA like the one
here is not defective if it specifies the nature of the proceedings, references
legal authority for the proceedings, and warns about in absentia removal. See
id. at 689–90 (distinguishing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 and the statutory stop-time
rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229). Moreover, even if an NTA without a time and date
for the removal proceedings were defective under Pereira, the defect can be
cured by a subsequent notice with the time and date of the hearing, like the
one Gonzalez Rivera received. See id. at 690–91.
Gonzales Rivera appears to concede that she has forfeited her personal
jurisdiction argument. In any event, she relies on the NTA’s defects to show
a lack of personal jurisdiction, essentially repeating her subject-matter
jurisdiction argument. This personal jurisdiction argument fails for the same
reason the subject-matter jurisdiction argument does.
The BIA did not erroneously dismiss Gonzalez Rivera’s appeal. Id. at
689; see Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 2011). The petition for
review is DENIED.
2