Court Opinion

ID: 9380237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:47.227221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.722597
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SABINO HERNANDEZ GARCIA,                        No.    20-70142

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-600-694

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Sabino Hernandez Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and

      *
             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).
the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Garcia’s motion

to reconsider where his contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction

over his proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th

1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice

to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8

C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Garcia’s motion

to reopen where he failed to establish the requisite hardship for relief. See Garcia

v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (a motion to reopen will not be

granted absent a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on

demonstrating “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief

have been satisfied” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                    20-70142