Wendi Maribel Solis, et al. v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 19-10781 (11th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-10781 Date Filed: 12/26/2019 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-10781 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A208-163-096 WENDI MARIBEL SOLIS, et al., Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 26, 2019) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-10781 Date Filed: 12/26/2019 Page: 2 of 3 Wendi Maribel Solis, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and her daughter, as her derivative beneficiary, petition for review of the final order that denied their motion to reconsider the dismissal of their appeal of a decision denying them all forms of immigration relief. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231. Solis moved the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its decision on the ground that defects in her initial notice to appear deprived the immigration judge of jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. See Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). While Solis’s petition was pending, we held in Perez-Sanchez v. United States Attorney General, 935 F.3d 1148, 1154–57 (11th Cir. 2019), that defects in a notice to appear do not affect the jurisdiction of the immigration judge and the Board to conduct removal proceedings. Because the immigration judge had the authority to adjudicate Solis’s application, we deny the petition for review. Perez-Sanchez forecloses Solis’s argument that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. In Perez-Sanchez, we held that the requirement for a notice to appear to specify the time and place of a removal hearing, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14, is a claim-processing rule that, even if violated, does not prevent an immigration judge and the Board from “properly exercis[ing] jurisdiction over [the alien’s] removal hearing based on the authority conferred upon them by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1)” and entering a “valid final order of removal.” 935 F.3d at 1154–57. In any event, no defect existed in the 2 Case: 19-10781 Date Filed: 12/26/2019 Page: 3 of 3 notice of appear that resulted in the final order of removal that Solis challenges in her petition. Solis received a notice to appear on December 20, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), but because she failed to appear, the immigration judge rescheduled the hearing for June 8, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. After her hearing, Solis filed her application for immigration relief, which the immigration judge denied when he entered the order of removal to Guatemala. We DENY Solis’s petition for review. 3
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.
