Court Opinion

ID: 9905152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:01:30.926245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:13.189013
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1531      Doc: 19         Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1531

        QUIRINO RIVERA TELLEZ,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. DEVINE, LLC, Charleston,
        South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
        General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony J. Nardi, Office of
        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1531      Doc: 19         Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Quirino Rivera Tellez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

        judge’s denial of Tellez’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.

        § 1229b(b)(1). In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found, in

        relevant part, that Tellez failed to show that his removal would cause an exceptional and

        extremely unusual hardship for Tellez’s U.S.-citizen stepson.             We review this

        determination as a mixed question of fact and law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th

        552, 560 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the administrative record in conjunction with

        the arguments advanced by Tellez and conclude that there is no error in the agency’s

        dispositive hardship analysis.

               Next, Tellez repeats his challenge to the agency’s authority to conduct his removal

        proceedings based on the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to identify the time,

        place, and date of Tellez’s initial hearing in the charging Notice to Appear (NTA).

        However, as the Board explained, this argument is foreclosed by Board precedent, see In

        re Arambula-Bravo, 28 I. & N. Dec. 388, 389 (B.I.A. 2021) (rejecting noncitizen’s

        argument “that the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction over her removal

        proceedings . . . because she was served with an NTA that did not include the time and

        place of her initial removal hearing”), which is consistent with this court’s rulings on the

        issue, see United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 358-66 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that an

        NTA’s failure to include the date or time of the hearing does not implicate the immigration

        court’s jurisdiction or adjudicative authority); see also United States v. Vasquez Flores,

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1531      Doc: 19         Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        No. 19-4190, 2021 WL 3615366, at *2 n.3 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (argued but

        unpublished) (reaffirming Cortez after considering Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474

        (2021)).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

        See In re Tellez (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                              PETITION DENIED

                                                     3