[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13764

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A098-240-462

DAVID ALEJANDRO GUERRERO-COSTILLA,

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 28, 2021)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-13764 Date Filed: 05/28/2021 Page: 1 of 6
2

David Alejandro Guerrero-Costilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).

1

 The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that 

Guerrero-Costilla failed to establish the required ten-year period of continuous 

physical presence in the United States for cancellation of removal based on the 

date he was served with his notice to appear (“NTA”). On appeal, GuerreroCostilla argues that the NTA was defective because it did not designate the specific 

time and place of his initial removal hearing, and it therefore did not interrupt his 

accrual of continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal, 

citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).

2

 In light of the Supreme 

1

 The Attorney General may cancel the removal of an inadmissible or removable alien 

and adjust the status of the alien to that of a lawful permanent resident if the alien:

(A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not 

less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application;

(B) has been a person of good moral character during such period;

(C) has not been convicted of [certain specified offenses]; and

(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United 

States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).

2 Guerrero-Costilla also argues that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s conclusion that 

he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The BIA, however, expressly 

declined to address that issue. Therefore, we do not address Guerrero-Costilla’s argument, and 

we leave it to the BIA to address this claim in the first instance on remand. Martinez v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that when the BIA does not 

address an IJ’s alternative holding, the alternative holding is not subject to review by this Court). 

USCA11 Case: 19-13764 Date Filed: 05/28/2021 Page: 2 of 6
3

Court’s recent decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), 

Guerrero-Costilla is entitled to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we grant his 

petition, vacate the decision of the BIA, and remand the case for further 

proceedings.

3

I. Background

On July 15, 2009, the Department of Homeland Security served 

Guerrero-Costilla with an NTA charging him as being removable for being an 

alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. The NTA did 

not contain the date, time, or location of Guerrero-Costilla’s initial removal 

proceeding. Approximately a week later, on July 22, 2009, the immigration court 

mailed Guerrero-Costilla’s attorney a notice of hearing with the time, date, and 

location of the hearing. Guerrero-Costilla appeared at the removal hearing and 

conceded his removability. 

Thereafter, Guerrero-Costilla filed an application for cancellation of 

removal. Following a hearing on his application, the IJ denied the application 

holding that: (1) Guerrero-Costilla could not establish the requisite 10 years of 

continuous physical presence because, although he entered the United States in 

1995, he took a six-month trip to Mexico in 2000 which constituted a break in his 

3 While this appeal was pending before the panel, the Respondent filed a motion to 

remand the case to the BIA to address the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 

Niz-Chavez. In light of our holding in this case, we deny the motion as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 19-13764 Date Filed: 05/28/2021 Page: 3 of 6
4

physical presence as he was absent for more than 90 days, and the service of the 

July 15, 2009 NTA ended his subsequent period of continuous physical presence; 

and (2) he failed to establish that his removal would result in exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 

Guerrero-Costilla appealed arguing that: (1) the IJ erred in finding that he 

could not meet the continuous presence requirement because his NTA did not 

specify a date or time for his initial removal proceeding, and it therefore did not 

trigger the stop-time rule; and (2) the IJ erred in finding that he failed to establish 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children if he were 

removed. 

The BIA dismissed his appeal and affirmed the IJ’s determination that,

under the stop-time rule for continuous physical presence, the period ended when 

Guerrero-Costilla received the July 22, 2009 notice of hearing because, pursuant to 

Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez and Capula-Cortes, 27 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 

2019), the subsequent notice of hearing perfected the prior deficient NTA which 

had not included the hearing information. Accordingly, the BIA concluded that 

Guerrero-Costilla’s lack of continuous physical presence for 10 years was “a 

decisive issue” that was fatal to his application for cancellation of removal, such 

that it was unnecessary to address the alternative holding that Guerrero-Costilla 

had failed to establish sufficient hardship to a qualifying relative. 

USCA11 Case: 19-13764 Date Filed: 05/28/2021 Page: 4 of 6
5

II. Discussion

We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that it adopts 

the IJ’s decision or expressly agrees with the IJ’s reasoning. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review questions of law de novo. 

Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016).

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), a non-citizen in removal proceedings must be 

provided with an NTA specifying, among other things, the time and place of the 

removal hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). And the stop-time rule for 

cancellation of removal provides that a non-citizen’s period of continuous physical 

presence is deemed to end “when the alien is served a notice to appear under 

section 1229(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). 

In Pereira, the Supreme Court held that an NTA that does not specify the 

time and place of the initial removal proceeding does not qualify as a “notice to 

appear under section 1229(a)” and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule. 

138 S. Ct. at 2110, 2116. Thereafter, the BIA determined that, when an NTA fails 

to specify the time or place of the initial removal hearing, the service of a 

subsequent notice of hearing containing information that perfects the deficient 

NTA triggers the stop-time rule and ends the non-citizen’s period of continuous 

physical presence in the United States. Matter of Mendoza-Hernandez and 

Capula-Cortes, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 529. However, the Supreme Court rejected this 

USCA11 Case: 19-13764 Date Filed: 05/28/2021 Page: 5 of 6
6

interpretation recently, holding that § 1229b(d)(1) and § 1229(a)(1) unambiguously 

require that the government provide a single NTA containing all of the information 

required to be in an NTA in order to trigger the stop-time rule. Niz-Chavez, 141 S. 

Ct. at 1479–86. 

Here, it is undisputed that Guerrero-Costilla’s July 15, 2009 NTA did not 

contain the date, time, or location of his initial removal proceeding. And the BIA’s 

interpretation of the stop-time rule—that the subsequent July 22, 2009 notice of 

hearing perfected the prior deficient NTA and triggered the stop-time rule—is an 

impermissible reading of the statute in light of Niz-Chavez. Accordingly, we grant 

the petition for review, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand this case to the BIA 

for it to reconsider whether Guerrero-Costilla established 10 years of continuous 

physical presence given the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez.

4

 If so, the 

BIA should address in the first instance the IJ’s alternative determination that 

Guerrero-Costilla failed to establish the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative

for purposes of cancellation of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED, BIA’S DECISION VACATED,

AND CASE REMANDED.

4

 Although it appears based on the administrative record before us that Guerrero-Costilla 

may have satisfied the 10 years’ physical presence requirement, the BIA is in the best position to 

make that determination in the first instance. 

USCA11 Case: 19-13764 Date Filed: 05/28/2021 Page: 6 of 6