Oscar Rodriguez-Cervantes v. William Barr, U. S. A, No. 19-60136 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-60136 Document: 00515440984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 4, 2020 No. 19-60136 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-CERVANTES, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A202 029 869 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Oscar Rodriguez-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to terminate his removal proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. In reliance on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), RodriguezCervantes contends his Notice to Appear (NTA) was defective, thereby depriving the immigration court of jurisdiction, because it did not state the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-60136 Document: 00515440984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020 No. 19-60136 date and time of his removal proceedings. Our court, however, has rejected this jurisdictional challenge and determined 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, 2020 WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (No. 19-779); see also Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2767 (2019). Rodriguez-Cervantes’s NTA was not defective because it detailed the nature of the removal proceedings, stated their legal basis, and warned about the possibility of in absentia removal; any alleged defect, moreover, would have been cured because Rodriguez-Cervantes was issued a later notice of hearing that included the date and time of his removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 690-91. We need not decide whether Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I. & N. Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), or Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), because, in decisions such as Mauricio-Benitez and PierrePaul, this court reached essentially the same conclusion as the BIA regarding the limited reach of Pereira without applying Chevron or Auer deference. See Bustamante-Barrera v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 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.
