[If motion is filed within 30 days of BIA’s decision] The Board issued its decision in Respondent’s case on . This motion is timely filed within 30 days of the date of that decision]. [If more than 30 have elapsed since the date of the Board’s decision] The Board issued its decision in Respondent’s case on . The Board should treat the instant motion as a timely filed statutory motion to reconsider because Respondent merits equitable tolling of the time [if applicable: and numeric] limitations. § IV.B., See infra. ARGUMENT As a Matter of Law, the Erred in Finding Jurisdiction over the Respondent’s Removal Proceedings In the Supreme Court stated, notice that does not inform a Pereira v. Sessions, “A noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a to appear under “notice section [239(a)].” slip op. 2. In the Respondent’s case, under the putative notice Pereira, Pereira to appear issued against [him/her] is not a to appear under section [239(a)]” and therefore “notice is insufficient to establish jurisdiction over this matter for either the immigration court or this Board. Accordingly, the Board should reconsider its decision in the Respondent’s case and terminate [his/her] removal proceedings. Section 239 of the INA is titled of removal proceedings,” and lays out various “Initiation requirements for the government to commence removal proceedings against an individual. See INA § 239. Within § 239, INA § 239(a) requires the issuance of a to appear” generally “notice that contains certain specified information. INA § 239(a)(1)(A)-(G). The required See information includes the time and place of the first hearing before the immigration court. See slip op. 3 (citing INA § 239(a)). Pereira, The implementing regulations for the commencement and procedures of removal proceedings specify that vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge “[j]urisdiction
[If motion is filed within 30 days of BIA’s decision] The Board issued its decision in Respondent’s case on . This motion is timely filed within 30 days of the date of that decision]. [If more than 30 have elapsed since the date of the Board’s decision] The Board issued its decision in Respondent’s case on . The Board should treat the instant motion as a timely filed statutory motion to reconsider because Respondent merits equitable tolling of the time [if applicable: and numeric] limitations. See § IV.B., infra. ARGUMENT As a Matter of Law, the Erred in Finding Jurisdiction over the Respondent’s Removal Proceedings In Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court stated, “A notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a “notice to appear under section [239(a)].” Pereira, slip op. 2. In the Respondent’s case, under Pereira the putative notice to appear issued against [him/her] is not a “notice to appear under section [239(a)]” and therefore is insufficient to establish jurisdiction over this matter for either the immigration court or this Board. Accordingly, the Board should reconsider its decision in the Respondent’s case and terminate [his/her] removal proceedings. Section 239 of the INA is titled “Initiation of removal proceedings,” and lays out various requirements for the government to commence removal proceedings against an individual. See generally INA § 239. Within § 239, INA § 239(a) requires the issuance of a “notice to appear” that contains certain specified information. See INA § 239(a)(1)(A)-(G). The required information includes the time and place of the first hearing before the immigration court. See Pereira, slip op. 3 (citing INA § 239(a)). The implementing regulations for the commencement and procedures of removal proceedings specify that “[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge
2018-5July_AppendixA_MxtoReconsider_Termination_Pereira.docx