Khan v. Barr

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60059
Summary Calendar

LAIQ KHAN,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A209 159 340

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Laiq Khan, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to terminate his
removal proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. That same order dismissed Khan’s
appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of request for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this
court, Khan argues only the jurisdictional issue, and he has thus waived any

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60059 Document: 00515411527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2020

No. 19-60059
2
challenge to the BIA’s decision regarding his requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th
Cir. 2003).
Regarding jurisdiction, Khan cites Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105
(2018), and contends that the notice to appear (NTA) which initiated his
removal proceedings was defective, thereby depriving the immigration court of
jurisdiction, because it did not state the date and time of his removal
proceedings. Our court, however, has rejected this jurisdictional challenge and
determined Pereira is limited to the context of the stop-time rule in removal
proceedings. See Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769-70 (5th Cir. 2019);
Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 688-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 2020 WL
1978950 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) (No. 19-779). Khan’s NTA was not defective
because it detailed the nature of the removal proceedings, stated its legal basis,
and warned about the possibility of in absentia removal; any alleged defect,
moreover, would have been cured because Khan was issued later notices of
hearing that included the date and time of his removal proceedings. See
Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 770; Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 690-91.
Accordingly, Khan’s petition for review is DENIED.
Case: 19-60059 Document: 00515411527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2020