Court Opinion

ID: 9382379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 16:00:35.968516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.951751
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERTHA SONIA CASTILLON-               No. 20-70558
CAMPOSANO, AKA Bertha Sonia Castillon
Camposano,                            Agency No. A072-810-969

                Petitioner,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

Submitted January 23, 2023, Withdrawn January 24, 2023, Resubmitted March 23,
                                   2023**
                           San Francisco, California

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

      Petitioner Bertha Castillon-Camposano (“Castillon-Camposano”), a citizen

of Peru, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision

      *
             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).
denying her motion to reopen sua sponte. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

discretionary denial of sua sponte relief. Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th

Cir. 2020). We dismiss Castillon-Camposano’s petition.

      1. We hold that the immigration courts did not lack jurisdiction due to an

allegedly deficient Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). The holding in Pereira v.

Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018), does not apply to Castillon-Camposano, as we

recognized in Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, No. 17-71012, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL

2518338 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2023). In Pereira, the Supreme Court considered the

requirements for a Notice to Appear under the Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”) after the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). The Court did not consider the pre-IIRIRA

statutory scheme, which explicitly permitted the time and place of the hearing to be

sent in a separate Notice of Hearing after the initial OSC. By contrast, the Notice to

Appear in post-IIRIRA proceedings expressly requires the time and place of the

hearing to be included in the initial document. Compare 8 U.S.C. §

1252b(a)(2)(A)(i) (1994), with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i)(2018).

      2. We do not have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for sua

sponte reopening by the BIA. Castillon-Camposano expressly sought to invoke the

BIA’s sua sponte authority so she could pursue other forms of relief.

      PETITION DISMISSED.

                                          2