Case: 19-60411 Document: 00515569101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 17, 2020
No. 19-60411
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Olayo Castillo-Carballo,
Petitioner,
versus
William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A077 793 267
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Olayo Castillo-Carballo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his
motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60411 Document: 00515569101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2020
No. 19-60411
Castillo-Carballo contends that the BIA erred, as a matter of law, and
abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. Specifically,
he argues that, pursuant to Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), only a
single, proper notice to appear – which specifies the time and place of the
removal hearing – can satisfy the written notice requirements of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). Given that Castillo’s notice to
appear did not contain the time and place of his removal hearing, he asserts
that he did not receive a proper notice to appear and, thus, could not be
ordered removed in absentia.
This court has already rejected similar challenges and concluded that
Pereira is limited to the context of the stop-time rule in cancellation of
removal proceedings. See Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 n.1
(5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2767 (2019). Moreover, even if
Castillo-Carballo’s notice to appear was defective under § 1229(a), any
alleged defect was cured by the subsequent notices of hearing which
contained the time and place information for his removal proceedings. See
Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2020
WL 1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (No. 19-779); see also Yanez-Pena v. Barr,
952 F.3d 239, 247 (5th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 8, 2020)
(No. 19-1208). Castillo-Carballo thus fails to show that the BIA committed
legal error or abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration
based on Pereira. See Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016); see also
Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2