Mario Estrada-Hernandez v. William Barr, U. S. Att

Case: 19-60418 Document: 00515662287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2020

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
December 4, 2020
No. 19-60418
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk

Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez,

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A078 929 737

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mario Antonio Estrada-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
of his motion to reopen. Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018),
Estrada-Hernandez argues that his notice to appear (NTA) was defective and

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60418 Document: 00515662287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2020

No. 19-60418

consequently deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction because it did
not state the date and time of his removal proceedings. We have rejected this
jurisdictional challenge and concluded that Pereira is limited to the context of
the stop-time rule in removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d
684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020); Mauricio-
Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.
Ct. 2767 (2019). Estrada-Hernandez fails to show that the BIA committed
legal error in denying his motion to reopen based on Pereira. See Ka Fung
Chan v. INS, 634 F.2d 248, 252 (5th Cir. 1981).
We are without jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada-Hernandez’s claim
that the BIA should have exercised its discretionary authority to reopen the
proceedings sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306
(5th Cir. 2017).
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2