United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60866

Summary Calendar

Reina Elizabeth Ramirez De Ayala, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A209 962 870

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Reina Elizabeth Ramirez De Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

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 in the 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 15, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60866 Document: 00516358254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 20-60866

2

for review, Ramirez De Ayala argues that she established exceptional 

circumstances to justify reopening her immigration proceedings based on her 

mother’s death. Further, Ramirez De Ayala argues that the IJ lacked 

jurisdiction over her immigration proceedings because the 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 

the NTA was defective, Ramirez De Ayala also contends that the in absentia 

removal order was invalid. 

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 held that a perfected NTA triggers the stoptime 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). 

Further, we held that, even if the NTA were defective and could not be 

cured, the regulation governing the NTA constitutes a claim processing rule, 

rather than a jurisdictional rule. Id. at 691-93. Therefore, an invalid NTA 

did not deprive an IJ of jurisdiction. See Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 

769-70 (5th Cir. 2019).

The Supreme Court rejected the two-step process endorsed by PierrePaul, 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 have 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 v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2021). Niz-Chavez did not 

address whether an inadequate NTA is insufficient to vest the immigration 

court with jurisdiction. See Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1479-80, 1485. On that 

Case: 20-60866 Document: 00516358254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 20-60866

3

question, Pierre-Paul is distinguishable and remains good law. See Rodriguez, 

15 F.4th at 355; Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021).

However, Rodriguez specifically held that an NTA that does not 

specify the date and time of the hearing is defective in the context of in 

absentia removal hearings. Rodriguez, 15 F.4th at 355-56. Ramirez De 

Ayala’s NTA was 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. 

Accordingly, Ramirez De Ayala’s petition for review is GRANTED, 

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

Case: 20-60866 Document: 00516358254 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/15/2022