Eusebio Gomez Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen. Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018), Gomez Salgado argues the immigration judge had no jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to appear was defective in that it failed to state the time and place of his initial removal hearing. We have rejected such arguments, concluding that Pereira is limited to cases involving the stop-time rule in removal proceedings, which is not at issue here. See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2718, 206 L.Ed.2d 854 (2020). Because Gomez Salgados argument is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul, which he concedes, he fails to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen based on Pereira. See Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2020).
The petition for review is DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.