Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Immigration Law

Unpub. CA5 Niz-Chavez VacRem: Tamayo-Lara v. Garland

Tamayo-Lara v. Garland

"Here, the initial NTA did not contain the time and date of Tamayo-Lara’s removal hearing. The BIA held that Tamayo-Lara’s argument that her NTA and in absentia removal order were invalid for failing to specify the time and place of her removal hearing were “foreclosed by our decision[] in Matter of Pena-Mejia, 27 I. & N. Dec. 546 (BIA 2019).” We have recently concluded, however, that the BIA’s reading of Section 1229(a) in Matter of Pena-Mejia is “directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1229(a) in Niz-Chavez [v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021),] which made clear that subsequent notices may not cure defects in an initial notice to appeal.” Rodriguez, 15 F.4th at 355. Thus, we conclude the NTA served on Tamayo-Lara failed to meet the notice requirements of Section 1229(a), and the BIA abused its discretion by failing to reopen Tamayo-Lara’s proceedings. We GRANT Tamayo-Lara’s petition, VACATE the BIA’s decision, and REMAND for further proceedings."

[Hats off to Donglai Yang!]