NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). As
Bautista-Mescua acknowledges, we have already held that they are not. Nkomo v. Att’y
Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 132-34 (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, 858 F.3d 173, 177 (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