Court Opinion

ID: 9379061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 16:00:52.922876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.697918
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 14 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUMBERTO TERRAZAS-MORALES,                      No.    18-73243

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-403-448

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 10, 2023**
                                 Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Humberto Terrazas-Morales petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for abuse of discretion. See

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition.

      *
             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).
      Terrazas-Morales’s main argument is that the BIA erred in rejecting his

argument that his Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which omitted the date and time of

his hearing, deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. This argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192 (9th Cir.

2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023). Thus, the BIA did not err in

denying the motion for reconsideration.

      Terrazas-Morales also argues, separate from his jurisdictional argument, that

the NTA’s lack of the date and time information rendered the NTA invalid (even

though he later received a notice of hearing that supplied the date and time

information and appeared at the hearing with his counsel). According to Terrazas-

Morales, because the NTA was invalid, the agency had to terminate the

proceedings. This argument fails in light of Bastide-Hernandez. See id. at 1193 &

n.9 (recognizing that an NTA that lacks date and time information but is later cured

by a notice of hearing suffices to commence proceedings before an immigration

judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a)).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          2