NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

URVANO RUIZ

- SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 1328 Agency No. A093

- 492

- 459

MEMORANDUM *

URVANO RUIZ

- SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 1388 Agency No. A093

- 492

- 459

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2024 **

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 10 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1388 Portland , Oregon
Before: WALLACH, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

. ***
Urvano Ruiz

- Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico who has lived in the
United States since 1980 , petitions for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision s. The first decision dismiss ed Ruiz

- Sanchez’s appeal of an order from an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The second BIA
decision dismissed Ruiz

- Sanchez’s motion to reconsider the finding of removability. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)

. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
See Ruiz

- Colmenares v. Garland , 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We grant the petition. In 2018, Ruiz

- Sanchez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, in violation of Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) then initiated removal proceedings against Ruiz

- Sanchez by sending him a Notice to Appear (NTA) that lacked date
and time information. After an IJ found him removable, Ruiz

- Sanchez argued for
the first time on appeal to the BIA that the absence of the date and time for his

*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach , United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit , sitting by designation.3 22

- 1388

hearing on the initial NTA required termination of the proceedings . Ruiz

- Sanchez argued termination was warranted both because the statutorily defective NTA deprived the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and because it
violated the claim

- processing rule in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1).
T he BIA correctly concluded that a statutorily deficient NTA d oes not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction. United States v.
Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187, 1190

– 94 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc)

. 1 But t he
BIA did not address Ruiz

- Sanchez’s claim

- processing argument. For that reason,
we cannot address it in the first instance. See Budiono v. Lynch , 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Our review is limited to those grounds explicitly relied upon by the Board.”) ; Abebe v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)

. We also “ remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands,” so that “[t]he agency can bring its expertise to bear upon the matter

. ” INS v. Orlando Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

– 17 (2002); see also Kalilu v. Mukasey , 548 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008) (remanding to the

1 Although th e en banc decision in Bastide

- Hernandez issued after the BIA’s November 15, 2021 ruling, the BIA’s reasoning aligned with this holding, and it cited to consistent statements in United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , 986 F.3d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 2021) (vacated) and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 893

– 95 (9th Cir. 2020).4 22

- 1388

BIA to consider in the first instance the impact of subsequently issued BIA standards). In Matter of Fernandes , the BIA recognized that the time and place requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) is a mandatory claim

- processing rule, which if raised in a timely objection, must be enforced. 28 I. & N. Dec. 605, 608 (BIA 2022). Recent Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority is consistent with
Fernandes

. See Campos

- Chaves v. Garland , 144 S. Ct. 1637 , 1649 (2024) ( recogniz ing that initial NTAs lacking time an d place information fail to satisfy
8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) ); id. at 1651 (describing the importance of this statutory requirement and the process to “rais e issues regarding incomplete notice”) ;
Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th at 1193 n.9 (noting that “the supplement of a notice of hearing would not cure any NTA deficiencies under § 1229(a)” ). We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider in the first
instance whether Ruiz

- Sanchez’s objection to the NTA was timely, and if so, to address its merits in light of Fernandes , Bastide

- Hernandez , and Campos

- C haves

. See Suate

- Orellana v. Garland , 101 F.4th 624 , 632 (9th Cir. 2024)

. 2
GRANTED.

2 We deny Ruiz

- Sanchez’s motion for judicial notice because it relates to the removability issue. Dkt . No. 36 in 21

- 1328; Dkt. No. 14 in 22

- 1388. Ruiz

- Sanchez’s removability argument is foreclosed by Tellez

- Ramirez v. Garland , 87 F.4th 424 (9th Cir. 2023) , which affirmed removability for a n aggravated felony based on a conviction for Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a)(1)

— the same offense at issue in this case.