Court Opinion

ID: 9394166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 16:00:56.5288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.615691
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GRACIELA MANZO VALLADARES; et                   No.    21-70621
al.,
                                                Agency Nos.       A216-182-442
                Petitioners,                                      A216-182-443
                                                                  A216-182-444
 v.                                                               A216-182-445

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,                                        MEMORANDUM*

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted May 10, 2023**
                               San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Graciela Manzo Valladares (Manzo), on behalf of herself and her three minor

children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge

      *
             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).
(IJ) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and remand in part, based on the

government’s unopposed motion to remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

      1.      Manzo argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to enter a

removal order because the Notice to Appear (NTA) she received did not contain the

location, date, and time of her removal hearing. This argument fails under circuit

precedent. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.

2022) (en banc) (“[D]efects in an NTA . . . have no bearing on an immigration

court’s adjudicatory authority.”). With respect to this claim, we deny the petition

for review.

      2.      As to the other claims, the government has filed an unopposed motion

to remand this case to the BIA so that the BIA may consider our recent decision in

Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1223 (9th Cir. 2023), which holds that “the

BIA must review de novo whether a persecutor’s motives meet the nexus legal

standards.” Id. at 1231. We grant the government’s motion and remand to the BIA.

Per the unopposed motion, the parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, and

petitioners’ removal shall be stayed pending the BIA’s decision.

      PETITION DENIED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.

                                          2