19-2293 Chen v. Garland BIA A078 729 935

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YONG LE CHEN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2293 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent.* 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Esq., Belle Mead, 24 NJ. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Sarah L. Martin, Trial Attorney, 27 Office of Immigration Litigation, 28 United States Department of 29 Justice, Washington, DC.

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Yong Le Chen, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the BIA’s denial

7 of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Yong

8 Le Chen, No. A 078 729 935 (B.I.A. July 11, 2019). We assume

9 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

10 procedural history.

11 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s

12 motion to reopen. See Ali v. Gonzales,

(2d

13 Cir. 2006) (reviewing denial of motion to reopen for abuse of

14 discretion). Relying on Pereira v. Sessions,

2105, 2114 (2018), Chen argued that his notice to appear

16 (“NTA”), which did not contain a hearing date and time, was

17 inadequate to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court.

18 Our decision in Banegas Gomez v. Barr,

, 110–12

19 (2d Cir. 2019), forecloses this argument. See In re Zarnel,

20

(2d Cir. 2010) (“This panel is bound by the

21 decisions of prior panels until such time as they are 2 1 overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the

2 Supreme Court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). An NTA

3 that does not provide the date and time of the hearing vests

4 jurisdiction with the immigration court if the noncitizen

5 receives a subsequent hearing notice with the missing

6 information. Banegas Gomez, 922 F.3d at 110–12. Although

7 Chen’s NTA did not contain the time and date of his initial

8 hearing, he received subsequent hearing notices and appeared

9 at his hearings.

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

11 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

12 stays VACATED.

13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 15 Clerk of Court

3