Goncalves Pontes v. Barr, 938 F.3d 1

Petitioner Danielson Mendes Goncalves Pontes, a Cape Verdean lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Massachusetts (2013) for violating a protective order.
In Sept. 2017 DHS served an NTA charging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) that did not state the date/time of the initial hearing; a subsequent notice of hearing supplied a date.
Petitioner conceded removability, applied for adjustment of status (later narrowed), and sought voluntary departure in the alternative; IJ denied relief and ordered removal after a merits hearing.
Petitioner moved (before the BIA) to terminate proceedings, arguing Pereira v. Sessions rendered the NTA invalid (for lacking time/place) and thus the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction.
The BIA denied the motion, relying on its prior decision (In re Bermudez‑Cota) and the agency’s regulations defining a “charging document”; the First Circuit reviews the legal question de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pereira invalidates an NTA lacking time/place so the immigration court lacked jurisdiction	Pereira requires §1229(a) time/place for any document labeled "Notice to Appear," so the NTA was defective and proceedings void	Pereira was narrowly about the stop‑time rule; agency regs independently vest jurisdiction when a charging document is filed and permit time/place later "where practicable"	Court: Pereira is narrow; regs lawfully govern commencement of proceedings; NTA effective to vest jurisdiction
Whether BIA’s interpretation of its regulations merits deference	N/A (challenge focused on Pereira effect)	BIA’s view that an NTA without time/place can vest jurisdiction when followed by a hearing notice is a reasonable interpretation of its regs	Court: BIA interpretation entitled to deference; adopted for resolving jurisdiction question

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (held an NTA lacking time/place does not trigger the stop‑time rule under §1229b)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency statutory‑interpretation framework governs deference)
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (limits on agency action inconsistent with statutory structure)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012) (identical words in a statute normally have the same meaning)
Cabrera v. Lynch, 805 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for BIA legal questions)
Pierre‑Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019) (rejected broad Pereira extension; upheld regs vesting jurisdiction)
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (same conclusion rejecting Pereira extension)