B L D
- 1 1 9 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 9

- 1063

___________ AMIR VANA ,

Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES O F AMERICA

____________________________________ On Petition f

or R eview of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Agency No. A0 78

- 492

- 675 ) Im migration Judge: Rosalind Malloy

____________________________________ Submitted on Respondent’s M otion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 2 0 Befor e: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : February 21, 2020 )

_________ OPINION *

_____ ____ PER CURIAM

* This dispositio n is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Amir Vana petitions for review of an orde r of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA ”) denying his lat est motion to reopen , reconsider and terminate removal proceedings . On the Government’s motion, we will summarily deny his petition.
Va na , a citizen of Israel , entered the United States in 1993 and overstayed his visa.
In June 20 00 , th e Government served him with a n otice to a ppear charging him with
removab ility under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). In 2006, an I mmigration J udge (“IJ”)
found Vana removable for overstaying his visa, for falsely repres enting himself as a United States citizen, and for committing a crime involving moral turpitude. Finding him
to be statutorily ineligible, t he IJ pretermitted Vana’s appl ication for adjustment of status. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ ’s decision , an d we denied Vana’s petition for
review. Se e Vana v. Att’y Ge n. , 341 F. App’x 836 (3d Cir. 2009)

. For reasons not c lear from the Administrative Record, Vana was not removed and,
in 2017 , he filed a motion with the BIA to stay his removal and reopen his rem oval proceedings in order to allow him to s eek asylum. The B IA denied Vana’s motions in a decision issued on April 16, 2018. We denied Vana’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision in part and dismissed it in part for lack of jurisdiction o n May 24, 2 019. See Vana v. Att’y Gen. , 774 F. App’x 772, 776

- 77 (3d Ci r. 2019)

. Before we issued our 2019 decision, Vana ret urned to the BIA and filed a second motion to reopen , reconsider and terminate his removal proceedings . He argued that the3

IJ lacked jurisdi ction to decid e his removability because hi s n otice to a ppear had been
defective under Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018)

. In Pereira , the Supreme Court held that a n otice to a ppear that omits the time and place of a hearing does not qualify as a “notice to appear under section 1229(a)” f or purposes of the cancellation of removal statute’s “stop time ” rule. 138 S. Ct. at 2113

– 14

. He further argued that a subsequent notice of hearing cont aining that information was insufficient to cure the jurisd ictional defect. The BIA rejec ted this arg ument and denied t he motion

. Vana once again petitions for review.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) . We review the BIA’s denial of
reop ening and reconsideration only for abuse of discretion. Se e Pllumi v. Att’y Gen. , 642 F.3d 155, 158 ( 3d Cir. 2011)

. We perceive no ne here

. Vana argued that his removal pro ceeding s should be reopened and terminated because his notice to appear was defect ive under Pereira

. The BIA rejected that argument on the b asis of In re Bermudez

- Cota , 27 I. & N. Dec . 441 (BIA 2018) , wherein it held that an IJ is vested with jurisdiction as long as a notice of hearing was sent that specified the time and place of the hearing. The BIA noted that Vana received a notice of
his hearing that specified its time and date an d that he appeared

. The BIA rejected Vana’s argument that Bermudez

- Cota was wrongly decided. We later agreed with
Bermudez

- Cota in concluding that a not ice to appear that is defective under Pereira for
purposes of the “stop time” rule applicable to cance llation of removal does not deprive an4

IJ of jurisdiction. See Nkomo v. Att’y Gen. , 930 F.3d 129, 133

- 34 (3d Cir. 2019) . Vana acknowledges Nkomo but ass erts that it should be “overruled." We distinguished our
d ecision i n Nkomo from the “narrow question” addressed in Pere ira . I n any event, our Court has denied rehearing en banc in Nkomo and th is Panel is not at liberty to reconsider
it. 1
For these reason s, the Government’s motion for summary action is granted, a nd

we will deny Vana’s petition for review

.

1 We find no support for Vana’s apparent suggestion that the can cellation of rem oval provision is somehow directly implicated in his case, and therefo re d o not address that contention further.