Yanez-Pena v. Garland, No. 19-60464 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 28, 2020.
Download PDF
Case: 19-60464 Document: 00516318817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit FILED United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit May 13, 2022 No. 19-60464 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Erika Jisela Yanez-Pena, also known as Erika Jisela PenaYanez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A088 349 634 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before Wiener, Graves, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60464 Document: 00516318817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2022 No. 19-60464 In 2020, we denied Petitioner Erika Yanez-Pena’s petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239, 241 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Yanez-Pena v. Garland, 209 L. Ed. 2d 727 (2021). We did so after concluding that, as a matter of first impression, “(1) the information statutorily required to be contained in” a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) “may be supplied in more than one document,” and (2) the stop-time rule, which halts the period of physical presence required for eligibility for cancellation of removal, and which is triggered “when the alien receives all required information, whether in one document or more.” Id. at 241. The Supreme Court recently rejected this rule, holding that the stoptime rule is only triggered by the receipt of a single NTA that contains all the statutorily required information. Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1485–86 (2021). In light of this pronouncement, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez. Yanez-Pena, 209 L. Ed. 2d at 727. Since then, we have concluded that Niz-Chavez’s holding applies to cases—like this one—in which a petitioner was ordered removed in absentia. Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Under Niz-Chavez’s interpretation of § 1229(a), we . . . require a single document containing the required information in the in absentia context.”), reh’g denied, 31 F.4th 935 (5th Cir. 2022). The petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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.
