NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 19-3592 ___________

JEAN CARLOS BAUTISTA-MESCUA, a/ka/ Jean Carlos Bautista, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-015-679) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ____________________________________

Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 29, 2020

Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, Circuit Judges, and GREENBERG, Senior Judge

(Filed: June 30, 2020)

OPINION *

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Petitioner Bautista-Mescua presents a single issue for review: Whether the

immigration courts are deprived of jurisdiction over the case of a petitioner who receives

a notice to appear that is defective under Pereira v. Sessions,

(2018). As

Bautista-Mescua acknowledges, we have already held that they are not. Nkomo v. Att’y

Gen.,

(3d Cir. 2019). Bautista-Mescua’s sole challenge to his order

of removal therefore fails because “the holding of a panel in a precedential opinion is

binding on subsequent panels.” See Reilly v. City of Harrisburg,

(3d

Cir. 2017) (quoting Policy of Avoiding Intra-circuit Conflict of Precedent, Internal

Operating Procedures of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals § 9.1). For that reason, we

will affirm the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

2