Court Opinion

ID: 9365943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 17:00:24.883184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.458094
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR IVAN HERNANDEZ MARQUEZ, No.                     18-72510

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A205-322-721

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 23, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Victor Ivan Hernandez Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, received a

Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him with removability for entry without

inspection. The NTA did not contain the time, date, location of the hearing, or the

address of the court in which the NTA was filed. The immigration court later

      *
             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).
circulated a Notice of Hearing with notice of the time, date, and location of the

hearing, and the address of the court.

      Hernandez applied for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Hernandez

did not qualify for relief and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision.

      Hernandez petitioned for review of the BIA decision, arguing that the

immigration court did not have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because

the NTA did not contain the time, date, and location of the hearing, nor the address

of the court.

      We review questions of law de novo. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070,

1076 (9th Cir. 2020). The immigration court has jurisdiction over a removal

proceeding even if the original NTA does not contain the date, time, and location

of the hearing. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192 (9th Cir.

2022) (en banc); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir.

2020); Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019). The

immigration court had jurisdiction. Hernandez did not challenge the BIA’s

holding on any other basis. Thus, we deny the petition.

   PETITION DENIED.

                                          2