Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01395/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01395-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Respondent
Guillermo Fidel Pino-Guevara
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1395

GUILLERMO FIDEL PINO-GUEVARA,

 Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 7, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 

General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, John F. Stanton, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1395 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/07/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Guillermo Fidel Pino-Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal 

from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying Pino-Guevara’s application for asylum and 

withholding of removal. We have reviewed Pino-Guevara’s claims and the administrative

record and conclude that the Board correctly applied the law, and that substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re Pino-Guevara (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2019).*

 We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 * On appeal, Pino-Guevara claims that the administrative agency lacked jurisdiction 

over his removal proceedings because his notice to appear did not state the time and place 

of his initial removal hearing. See Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (holding 

that notice to appear that fails to designate time or place of removal proceeding does not 

trigger stop-time rule ending alien’s continuous presence period for cancellation of 

removal). Upon review, we find Pino-Guevara’s claims are squarely foreclosed by our 

decision in United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that the failure 

of a notice to appear to include a date and time for petitioner’s removal hearing “does not 

implicate the immigration court’s adjudicatory authority or ‘jurisdiction’”). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1395 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/07/2020 Pg: 2 of 2