CA10: Defect in notice to appear for removal hearing was not jurisdictional

In Lopez-Muñoz v. Barr (opinion by Judge Bacharach), the petitioner argued that her notice of removal was defective because it failed to include the date and time of her immigration hearing (in a footnote, the Court states that she did receive another notice with that information).

The petitioner argued that this was a jurisdictional defect that allows her to bring a collateral challenge to the removal order, which was entered six years ago. She relied on a regulation stating that an immigration judge obtains jurisdiction when a charging document is filed.

The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument, pointing out that “the term ‘jurisdiction’ is often loosely used for requirements unrelated to an agency or court’s power to act,” and that the regulation’s use of the word here was “colloquial.” In addition, the regulation could not have affected the immigration judge’s jurisdiction because “[i]mmigration judges obtain their powers from Congress, not agency regulations.”

This entry was posted in Opinions and Analysis, Tenth Circuit and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.