IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60016

Summary Calendar

LOVEPREET SINGH,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 195 242

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lovepreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider his 2012

in absentia removal order. Relying primarily on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 

2105, 2109–10 (2018) (resolving “narrow question” that Notice to Appear

(NTA) omitting time or place of removal proceeding does not trigger 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a’s “stop-time” rule for cancellation of removal), Singh contends the 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60016 Document: 00515318748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2020
No. 19-60016

2

immigration court lacked jurisdiction to order his in absentia removal because 

his NTA, omitting his removal proceeding’s time and date, was not a valid 

charging document. In the alternative, Singh asserts that, even if the 

immigration court had jurisdiction, Pereira nonetheless requires his in 

absentia removal order be rescinded because he did not receive adequate notice 

of his removal hearing. (Despite the Government’s contention otherwise, 

Singh exhausted his alternative claim before the BIA, notwithstanding the 

claim’s being more developed in his briefing in our court. See Omari v. Holder, 

562 F.3d 314, 321–22 (5th Cir. 2009) (requiring petitioner “fairly present” issue

by taking “some affirmative action” to present “concrete statement before the 

BIA to which [he] could reasonably tie [his] claims before [our] court”); 

Carranza-De Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200, 206–07 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(concluding petitioner exhausted claim presented before BIA in broader, lessdeveloped form than in petition for review).)

This is Singh’s third challenge to his in absentia removal order. An 

immigration judge denied his first challenge, a motion to reopen claiming the 

NTA he received warned him insufficiently of the consequences of failure to 

appear. He did not challenge this ruling before the BIA. Our court denied his 

second challenge, a petition for review of the BIA’s denying his second motion 

to reopen, which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. See Singh v. Lynch, 

670 F. App’x 216, 216–18 (5th Cir. 2016). 

For obvious reasons, the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider is 

reviewed “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Zhao v. 

Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Under that 

standard, the BIA’s decision will be affirmed unless it was “capricious, racially 

invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational 

 Case: 19-60016 Document: 00515318748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2020
No. 19-60016

3

that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach”. 

Id. at 304 (citation omitted). 

Singh’s claims fail. Where, as in this instance, the NTA specifies, inter 

alia, “the nature of the proceedings, the legal authority for the proceedings, 

and [a] warning about the possibility of in absentia removal”, it is not defective 

as a charging document. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 690 (5th Cir. 

2019), petition for cert. filed, 88 U.S.L.W. 3212 (U.S. 16 Dec. 2019) (No. 19-779) 

(citations omitted). Moreover, even assuming arguendo an NTA lacking the 

removal hearing’s time and date were defective under Pereira, the defect would 

be cured by a subsequent notice-of-hearing’s including the hearing’s time and 

date. See id. at 690–91. Singh’s attorney received such notice, and Singh does 

not contend notice to his attorney was defective.

DENIED.

 Case: 19-60016 Document: 00515318748 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/21/2020