19

- 2293 Chen v. Garland BIA A 078 729 935



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR**  **AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT**  = **S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN**  **ELECTR ONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **” ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY**  **ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.**

**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Mar**  **shall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 2**  **6 t**  **h da**  **y of A**  **p r**  **i l**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**- one** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES**

**,** 7 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  8 **RICHARD J. SULLIVAN**  **,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **YONG LE CHEN ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 19** 

**- 2293**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED**  18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** ***** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Richard Tarzia, Esq., Belle Mead , 23
N J

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Sarah L. Martin , Trial Attorney, 26 Office of Immigration Litigation , 27 United States Department of 28 Justice, Washington, D C. 29

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent

.2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 3

is DENIED

. 4

Petitioner Yong Le Chen , a native and citizen of the 5

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of the BIA ’s denial 6

of hi s motion to reopen his removal proceedings

. In re Yong 7

Le Chen , No. A 078 729 935 (B.I.A. July 11, 2019 ). We assume 8

the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 9

procedural history. 10

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s 11

motion to reopen. See Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d 12

Cir. 2006) (reviewing denial of motion to reopen for abuse of 13

discretion). Relying on Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 14

2105, 2114 (2018), C hen argued that his notice to appear 15

(“NTA”), which did not contain a hearing date and time, was 16

inadequate to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court. 17

Our decision in Banegas Gomez v. Barr , 922 F.3d 101, 110

– 12 18

(2d Cir. 2019) , forecloses this argument

. See In re Zarnel , 19

619 F.3d 156, 168 (2d Cir. 2010) (“This panel is bound by the 20

decisions of prior panels until such time as they are 213 overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the 1

Supreme Court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). An NT A 2

that does not provide the date and time of the hearing vests 3

jurisdiction with the immigration court if the noncitizen 4

receive s a subsequent hearing notice with the missing 5

information. Banegas Gomez , 922 F.3d at 110

– 12. Although 6

Chen’s NTA did not contain the time and date of his initial 7

hearing, he received subsequent hearing notices and appeared 8

at his hearings

. 9

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 11

stays VACATED. 12

FOR T HE COURT: 13 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, 14 Clerk of Court 15