Court Opinion

ID: 9891594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 00:00:37.479499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:27.689002
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60571         Document: 00516935912             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60571
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                                                                October 18, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Alfonso Recendiz-Fernandez,                                                         Clerk

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.

                           Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               Board of Immigration Appeals
                                 Agency No. A200 594 703

   Before Dennis, Elrod, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Alfonso Recendiz-Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
   for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
   dismissing his appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) holding
   that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60571      Document: 00516935912           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                     No. 22-60571

          This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. at 517-
   18.
          First, Recendiz-Fernandez argues that the BIA erred in affirming the
   IJ’s finding that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
   § 1229b(b)(1) because he had failed to show that his removal would result in
   “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children, who are U.S.
   citizens. However, we have recently held that the hardship determination for
   purposes of cancellation of removal “is a discretionary and authoritative
   decision” which we lack jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir.
   2022). While Recendiz-Fernandez contends that this holding was incorrect,
   we are bound by it under our rule of orderliness. See United States v. Lipscomb,
   299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Second, Recendiz-Fernandez argues that his Notice to Appear
   (“NTA”) did not contain the time and date of removal proceedings, as
   required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1). Since § 1229(a)(1) is a claim-processing
   rule, rather than a jurisdictional requirement, an NTA is sufficient to
   commence proceedings even if it fails to include date and time information.
   See, e.g., Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021); Pierre-
   Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 693 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated on other grounds by
   Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). As a claim-processing rule,
   violations of § 1229(a)(1), including noncompliant notices, are subject to
   waiver and forfeiture. Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693. As argued by the
   Government, Recendiz-Fernandez forfeited this argument by failing to
   timely raise it below. See id.

                                          2
Case: 22-60571     Document: 00516935912           Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                    No. 22-60571

           Lastly, Recendiz-Fernandez renews his request—that a member of
   our court has already denied—to place these proceedings in abeyance
   pending disposition of his motion to reopen before the BIA, in which he
   argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. “The BIA’s denial of an
   appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders,
   each of which require their own petitions for review.” Guevera v. Gonzales,
   450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jaquez-Vega v. Gonzales, 140 F.
   App’x 547 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished)). This same principle applies to
   motions to reopen. Diaz-Diaz v. Garland, 846 F. App’x 281, 282 (5th Cir.
   2021) (unpublished). The propriety of the BIA’s disposition of the motion to
   reopen should be litigated after the BIA rules upon that motion, a ruling
   which will not affect these proceedings. We, therefore, decline to place these
   proceedings in abeyance. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 83 F. App’x 672, 672 (5th Cir.
   2003) (unpublished) (declining to hold a case in abeyance because the “the
   motion to reopen d[id] not affect the finality of the deportation order” then
   currently on review).
           The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in
   part.

                                         3