Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12196/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12196-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramiro Bernardo Gomez-Lopez
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12196

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A200-617-099

RAMIRO BERNARDO GOMEZ-LOPEZ, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(March 10, 2020)

Before BRANCH, GRANT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 19-12196 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

Ramiro Gomez-Lopez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) denial of his motion to reopen on the basis that his notice to appear (NTA) 

was deficient and, therefore, the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his 

removal proceedings. After review,1 we deny the petition for review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), an alien in removal proceedings must be 

provided with an NTA specifying the time or place of the alien’s hearing. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). An NTA that does not specify the time and place of the 

hearing does not comport with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and consequently is not an NTA 

under § 1229(a). Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2110 (2018). We recently 

clarified that 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and related agency regulations set out a 

claim-processing rule, as opposed to a jurisdictional rule. Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir. 2019). Because the rule is not 

jurisdictional, its violation does not deprive immigration courts of jurisdiction. Id.

The district court did not abuse its discretion because Gomez-Lopez’s claim

is foreclosed by our holding in Perez-Sanchez that statutorily deficient notices to 

appear do not deprive immigration courts of jurisdiction. See Perez-Sanchez, 935 

F.3d at 1150. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

1

 The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

Montano Cisneros v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1224, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 19-12196 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 Page: 2 of 2