Case: 19-60464 Document: 00516318817 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 13, 2022
No. 19-60464 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Erika Jisela Yanez-Pena, also known as Erika Jisela Pena-
Yanez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A088 349 634
ON REMAND FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before Wiener, Graves, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60464 Document: 00516318817 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/13/2022
No. 19-60464
In 2020, we denied Petitioner Erika Yanez-Pena’s petition for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her
motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Yanez-Pena v. Barr, 952 F.3d 239,
241 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, judgment vacated sub nom. Yanez-Pena v.
Garland, 209 L. Ed. 2d 727 (2021). We did so after concluding that, as a
matter of first impression, “(1) the information statutorily required to be
contained in” a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) “may be supplied in more than
one document,” and (2) the stop-time rule, which halts the period of physical
presence required for eligibility for cancellation of removal, and which is
triggered “when the alien receives all required information, whether in one
document or more.” Id. at 241.
The Supreme Court recently rejected this rule, holding that the stop-
time rule is only triggered by the receipt of a single NTA that contains all the
statutorily required information. Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474,
1485–86 (2021). In light of this pronouncement, the Supreme Court granted
the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded the
case for further consideration in light of Niz-Chavez. Yanez-Pena, 209 L. Ed.
2d at 727. Since then, we have concluded that Niz-Chavez’s holding applies
to cases—like this one—in which a petitioner was ordered removed in
absentia. Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Under
Niz-Chavez’s interpretation of § 1229(a), we . . . require a single document
containing the required information in the in absentia context.”), reh’g
denied, 31 F.4th 935 (5th Cir. 2022).
The petition for review is GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is
VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2