Court Opinion

ID: 9410545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 18:00:55.422755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.457010
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 21 2023
                                                                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR CABRERA ARVIZO,                       No. 21-1389
                                               Agency No.
             Petitioner,                       A215-562-512
 v.
                                               MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before:     HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Salvador Cabrera Arvizo, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to

reopen and terminate his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion

      *
            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).
to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020), and to

reopen, Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016).

      Cabrera Arvizo’s contention that the defect in his Notice to Appear

deprived the immigration judge of jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed

by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022)

(en banc) (“[T]he failure of an NTA to include time and date information does

not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction.”).

      Because Cabrera Arvizo does not challenge the BIA’s determination that

his motion was untimely, we do not address that issue. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,

706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Our jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is

limited to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or

constitutional error.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. Because Cabrera Arvizo has not

demonstrated any legal or constitutional error, we lack jurisdiction. See Lona v.

Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]here is nothing left for us to

review.”).

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

      PETITION DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                        2                                  21-1389