Mario Estrada-Hernandez v. William Barr, U. S. Att, No. 19-60418 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-60418 Document: 00515661601 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 4, 2020 No. 19-60418 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 929 737 Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen. Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Estrada-Hernandez argues that his notice to appear (NTA) was defective and * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60418 Document: 00515661601 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2020 No. 19-60418 consequently deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction because it did not state the date and time of his removal proceedings. We have rejected this jurisdictional challenge and concluded that Pereira is limited to the context of the stop-time rule in removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020); MauricioBenitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2767 (2019). Estrada-Hernandez fails to show that the BIA committed legal error in denying his motion to reopen based on Pereira. See Ka Fung Chan v. INS, 634 F.2d 248, 252 (5th Cir. 1981). We are without jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada-Hernandez’s claim that the BIA should have exercised its discretionary authority to reopen the proceedings sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2017). DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.