Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12366/USCOURTS-ca11-19-12366-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Xin Yan Hu
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12366

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A096-006-929

XIN YAN HU, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(February 4, 2020)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-12366 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

Xin Yan Hu fled China and arrived in Miami in September 2002. She was 

immediately detained. Two weeks later, on September 17, 2002, she was given a 

notice to appear for removal proceedings at a time and date “TO BE 

DETERMINED.” Despite the lack of time and date on the notice, Hu appeared 

before an immigration judge in June 2003, acknowledged service, and conceded 

removability. The immigration judge gave her a notice of hearing that provided 

the time and date of her next hearing.

Hu’s case proceeded before the immigration judge and Board of 

Immigration Appeals until, in August 2005, the BIA ordered Hu deported. 

In September 2018 she moved the BIA to reopen her case in light of Pereira 

v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2015 (2018).1 Hu contended that, under Pereira, the stoptime rule was not triggered by a notice to appear that did not include a date and 

time. Thus, she alleged, she now qualified for a cancellation of removal because 

she had been in the United States for more than ten years. The BIA rejected Hu’s 

motion for two reasons: (1) her motion was time barred and (2) the defective notice 

was cured by a later notice of hearing that included a time and date. Hu appeals.

To obtain reversal of a judgment that is based on multiple, independent 

grounds, an appellant must prove that every stated ground for the judgment against 

1 The record does not reflect whether Hu left and came back, or evaded removal for all 

thirteen years.

USCA11 Case: 19-12366 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

her is wrong. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th 

Cir. 2014). When an appellant fails to challenge one of those grounds in her

appeal, “[she] is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it 

follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id.

On appeal, Hu contends only that the BIA erred in holding that a notice of 

hearing can cure a defective notice to appear. She does not contend that the BIA 

erred in finding that her motion was time barred. She has therefore abandoned that 

claim and the BIA’s order is affirmed.

PETITION DENIED. 

USCA11 Case: 19-12366 Date Filed: 02/04/2020 Page: 3 of 3