Case: 19-60546 Document: 00515965945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 4, 2021
No. 19-60546 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Roberto Enrique Mauricio-Benitez, also known as
Roberto Sanchez-Fajardo,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A098 121 741
ON REMAND FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Roberto Mauricio-Benitez petitioned for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his motion to reopen, asserting, inter
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60546 Document: 00515965945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
No. 19-60546
alia, his notice to appear was invalid and did not trigger the stop-time rule
because it failed to list the date and time of the removal hearing. Mauricio-
Benitez v. Barr, 831 F. App’x 120, 121 (5th Cir. 2020), vacated sub nom.,
Mauricio-Benitez v. Garland, No. 20-1250, 2021 WL 2405147 (U.S. 14 June
2021). Our court denied his petition, based on then-existing precedent
providing “a defective notice to appear may be cured with a subsequent
notice of hearing”. Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 690 (5th Cir. 2019),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474
(2021). (We also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Mauricio’s seeking review
of the BIA’s refusing to reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte. That
aspect of his petition for review is not before our court on remand.)
The Supreme Court has since held: in order to trigger the stop-time
rule, a notice to appear must be “‘a’ written notice containing all the required
information”, i.e., it may not be cured by a subsequent notice of hearing. Niz-
Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1480.
In this case, the Court granted Mauricio’s petition for a writ of
certiorari, vacated our prior decision, and remanded for further consideration
in the light of Niz-Chavez. Mauricio-Benitez, 2021 WL 2405147, at *1. As a
result, this matter is REMANDED to the BIA in accordance with the
judgment of the Supreme Court.
2
Mauricio-Benitez v. Garland
Combined Opinion