UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1072
MARTHA ISABEL BENITEZ-VASQUEZ; B.D.R.B.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: July 29, 2019 Decided: August 14, 2019
Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lara Wilkinson, LAW OFFICE OF LARA WILKINSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant
Director, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martha Isabel Benitez-Vasquez and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador,
petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their
motion to reconsider and terminate. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
We conclude that the Board and the immigration judge (IJ) had jurisdiction to
adjudicate the Petitioners’ removal. See United States v. Cortez, __ F.3d __, __, No. 19-
4055, 2019 WL 3209956, at *5 (4th Cir. July 17, 2019) (stating that “the failure of the
notice to appear filed with the immigration court to include a date and time for [the]
removal hearing [] does not implicate the immigration court’s adjudicatory authority or
jurisdiction” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny in part the petition
for review.
Insofar as the Petitioners argue that the notices to appear (NTA) did not serve to
properly initiate removal proceedings against them, we conclude that the Petitioners
waived this argument by not raising it before the IJ. See Qureshi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d
985, 990 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that alien waived challenge to NTA that lacked sufficient
certificate of service because alien conceded removability as charged in the NTA). Thus,
we dismiss in part the petition for review.
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
2