Court Opinion

ID: 9394530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 18:00:33.352913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.717090
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           MAY 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MARIA DELGADILLO-MEJIA,                     No. 21-1201

              Petitioner,                        Agency No.      A205-467-286

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

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted May 11, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit
Judges.

       Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia petitions for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order refusing to sua sponte reopen his removal

proceedings. “When the BIA denies sua sponte reopening . . . as a matter of

discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision, although we retain

jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening for ‘legal or

       *
            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).
constitutional error.’” Rubalcaba v. Garland, 998 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.

2021) (quoting Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2020)).

      Delgadillo-Mejia argues only that the BIA legally erred by determining

that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which omitted the time and location

information required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), did not deprive the

immigration judge of jurisdiction over his removal proceedings. This argument

is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1191–92

(9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that an NTA’s failure to comply with the

requirements under § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) does not deprive the immigration court

of jurisdiction), cert. denied, No. 22-6281, 2023 WL 350056 (U.S. Jan. 23,

2023).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                       2                                  21-1201