Denis Mejia v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen, 952 F.3d 255

Mejia, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2006 and was served with an NTA that omitted time/place; the Government later mailed a Notice of Hearing (NOH) scheduling a November 2006 hearing in New Orleans, which Mejia says he did not receive.
Mejia failed to attend the November 2006 hearing and was ordered removed in absentia; he learned of the removal shortly thereafter but did not seek reopening for about a decade.
In 2016 Mejia moved to reopen (seeking administrative closure and adjustment via his U.S. spouse), arguing equitable tolling and later that he never received a valid NTA (invoking Pereira) so the IJ lacked jurisdiction and the stop-time rule was not triggered.
The IJ denied reopening for lack of diligence and on other grounds; the BIA affirmed and denied Mejia’s later motions (untimely, successive, and meritless as to notice and eligibility).
After Pereira, Mejia filed a second motion to reopen/reconsider arguing the defective NTA invalidated the in absentia order and preserved cancellation eligibility; the BIA rejected it as untimely/successive and found the NOH cured the NTA defect.
The Fifth Circuit applied abuse-of-discretion review and denied Mejia’s consolidated petitions, holding equitable tolling and §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) relief were properly denied and that §1229a(b)(5)(A)’s notice rule is nonjurisdictional and was forfeited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling excuses Mejia’s 90‑day motion-to-reopen delay	Mejia: extraordinary circumstances/diligence justify tolling given he later sought relief when eligible	Gov: ten‑year unexplained delay shows lack of diligence; tolling unwarranted	Denied—ten‑year unexplained delay precludes equitable tolling
Whether IJ must reopen at any time if alien did not receive an NTA (§1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii))	Mejia: “at any time” means no time limit on reopen motions for lack of notice	Gov: subsection is discretionary; IJ may but need not reopen, and lack of diligence supports denial	Denied—subsection is discretionary; IJ/ BIA permissibly declined to reopen for gamesmanship/delay
Whether defective NTA (no time/place) deprives IJ of jurisdiction under Pereira/§1229a(b)(5)(A)	Mejia: NTA defect means IJ never had jurisdiction; removal in absentia void	Gov: any defect is claim‑processing; later NOH cured defect; jurisdiction not lacking	Denied—§1229a(b)(5)(A) is nonjurisdictional; Mejia forfeited the claim; Pierre‑Paul precedent controls
Whether Mejia is eligible for cancellation of removal (stop‑time rule)	Mejia: defective NTA did not trigger stop‑time, so he accrued 10 years and can seek cancellation	Gov: NOH (time/place) cured NTA; stop‑time triggered; Mejia ineligible	Denied—BIA found NOH cured defect; Mejia’s motion was untimely/successive so merits not reached

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (NTA must include time/place to trigger stop‑time rule)
Lugo‑Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016) (motion‑to‑reopen deadline subject to equitable tolling standard)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Altamirano‑Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006) (motions to reopen are discretionary and disfavored)
Gomez‑Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (reopening is discretionary)
Pierre‑Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019) (subsequent NOH can cure defective NTA; §1003.14 is claim‑processing)
Fort Bend Cty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (claim‑processing objections may be forfeited if not timely raised)
Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (limits on treating statutory provisions as jurisdictional)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (mandatory language alone not dispositive of jurisdictional character)
United States v. Graves, 908 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2019) (textualist caution: read statutory text in context)