Court Opinion

ID: 9900898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 18:00:46.586256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.237311
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                                                                          NOV 20 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASIF MUHAMMED; FARHANA ASIF,                     No.   18-73465

             Petitioners,                        Agency Nos.        A079-628-793
                                                                    A079-628-794
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                     MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted November 16, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: D.M. FISHER,*** BYBEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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 Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
      Petitioners Asif Muhammed and Farhana Asif seek review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying their second motion to reopen

proceedings, a motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings, and a motion to

stay removal.

      The sole issue presented by the petition is whether a Notice to Appear

(NTA) that lacks the address of the Immigration Court (IC) in which the NTA is to

be filed deprives the IC of jurisdiction over removal proceedings. An en banc

panel of this Court recently held that “defects in an NTA likewise have no bearing

on an immigration court’s adjudicatory authority.” United States v. Bastide-

Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

755 (2023). The Court’s reasoning as to an NTA lacking the time and date of

proceedings is equally applicable to an NTA initially omitting the address of the IC

in which the NTA is to be filed. After all, “Section 1003.14(a) is a claim-

processing rule not implicating the [immigration] court’s adjudicatory authority,

and [this Court] read[s] its reference to ‘jurisdiction’ in a purely colloquial sense.”

Id. at 1191.

PETITION DENIED.

                                           2