Carlos Orta Martinez v. Pamela Bondi -Board of Immigration Appeals

Circuit 6Jan 27, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 58/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Sixth Circuit denied two consolidated petitions for review filed by Carlos Orta Martinez, a Mexican citizen, challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of cancellation of removal and the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reopen. The court held that the BIA applied the correct legal standard to the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ requirement and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the case, thereby leaving the removal order in place.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) that omits the time and date of the initial immigration hearing is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction, or merely a mandatory claims-processing requirement that can be cured by a later Notice of Hearing.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 2Circuit 6(this circuit)Circuit 8

Omission of time/date in the NTA is a jurisdictional defect (subject-matter jurisdiction).

Circuit 4Circuit 7Circuit 9

Requirement is a mandatory claims-processing rule; omission does not affect jurisdiction.

Conflict Summary

Some circuits treat the statutory/regulatory requirement that an NTA include the time and date of the hearing as jurisdictional, meaning that a defective NTA divests the immigration court of authority unless the defect is properly cured. Other circuits view the requirement as a non-jurisdictional, mandatory claims-processing rule; a defect does not eliminate jurisdiction, although it may provide other relief if timely raised.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Carlos Orta Martinez
Appellee:Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General