United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-61008

Summary Calendar

Cintia Lizeth Garcia-Turcios, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 892 582

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cintia Lizeth Garcia-Turcios, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

affirming the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of her motion to reopen and 

to rescind an in absentia removal order entered against her. In her petition 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 14, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-61008 Document: 00516356686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
No. 20-61008

2

for review, Garcia-Turcios argues that the IJ should have reopened her 

proceedings because she never received the notices of hearing that were sent 

to her Florida mailing address and the toll-free number she called failed to 

provide her with any information about her hearing date. She also contends 

that her notice to appear (NTA) was defective for not including a time and 

date for her removal hearing, in violation of Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 

(2018). Because we agree with her latter argument, in light of new 

developments in addition to Pereira, we do not consider her former argument.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a deferential abuseof-discretion standard. Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 354 (5th Cir. 

2021). An erroneous interpretation of the law is an abuse of discretion. Id.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), an in absentia removal 

order may be rescinded “upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien 

demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with 

[§ 1229(a)(1) or (2)].” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Section 1229(a)(1) 

requires that written notice—in the form of an NTA—be provided in 

removal proceedings and that the NTA shall include, among other things, 

“[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” 

§ 1229(a)(1)(G)(i).

In Pereira, the Supreme Court held that an NTA that fails to inform 

an alien of when and where to appear is invalid and therefore does not trigger 

the stop-time rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d), ending the period of continuous 

presence in the United States for purposes of cancellation of removal. 138 S. 

Ct. at 2109-10. After Pereira, we endorsed a two-step notice process, holding 

that a perfected NTA triggers the stop-time rule when an alien receives all 

required information, whether in one document or more. Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2019), overruled in part as recognized by Maniar 

v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case: 20-61008 Document: 00516356686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
No. 20-61008

3

After the parties submitted their briefs, the Supreme Court rejected 

the two-step process endorsed by Pierre-Paul, holding that an NTA is 

inadequate to trigger the stop-time rule unless it contains the time and place 

of the proceedings. Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1484-86 (2021). 

Applying Niz-Chavez, we held that, in the context of in absentia removal 

orders, a single document containing the statutory information is required for 

the alien to receive proper notice. Rodriguez, 15 F.4th at 355. GarciaTurcios’s NTA was therefore invalid because it did not include the date and 

time of her removal hearing, and the deficiency was not cured by subsequent 

notices. See id. at 355-56. In light of Niz-Chavez and Rodriguez, the BIA’s 

denial of Garcia-Turcio’s motion to reopen was an abuse of discretion 

because it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. See Rodriguez, 

15 F.4th at 354.

Accordingly, Garcia-Turcios’s petition for review is GRANTED, 

the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Case: 20-61008 Document: 00516356686 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2022