Bermudez-Cota is contrary to the Supreme Court's precedent, hence, legally inconsequential.
Bermudez-Cota construes INA *239(a) contrary to the Superior Court's construction given in PereiraThe Supreme Court has held that *[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen*s removal proceedings is not a *notice to appear under *1229(a).* Pereira v. Sessions, --- S.Ct. ---, 2018 WL 3058276 (2018), Slip. Op. at 2.
Soon after the Supreme Court gave its construction of 8 USC *1229(a), the BIA gave its own construction contradicting with the Supreme Court and held that, *[a] notice to appear that does not specify the time and place of an alien*s initial removal hearing vests an Immigration Judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings and meets the requirements of section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. * 1229(a) (2012), so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), distinguished.* Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I&N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018). The Immigration and Naturalization (*INA*) section 239(a) is codified as 8 USC *1229a.
The BIA, which is a federal administrative court, does not have authority to overrule the precedent of the Supreme Court, the highest court of the Land. See, e.g. , James v. City of Boise, Idaho, 136 S.Ct. 685, 686 (2016)(quoting Nitro-Lift Technologies, LLC v. Howard, 133 S.Ct. 500, 503 (2012) (per curiam)(**It is this Court*s responsibility to say what a statute means, and once this Court has spoken, it is the duty of other courts to respect that understanding of the governing rule of law.**)
Bermudez-Cota is 1) a revercible error, and 2) abuse of discretion.The BIA*s ruling in Bermudez-Cota is in apparent and irreconcilable contradiction with the Supreme Court*s precedent, and, as a consequence of contradicting the precedent: 1) a reversible error as departures from precedents that are reversible errors under Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002), and 2) abuse of discretion, as ruling contrary to law is abuse of discretion. Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2014).