Court Opinion

ID: 9370740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 18:00:47.260749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:23.332801
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

HIREN JAGDISH PATEL,                             No.   19-70460

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A096-389-469

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 26, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

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

      Hiren Patel petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) denying a motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We review

the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and purely legal questions

de novo. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020).

      *
             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).
      The BIA did not err in denying Patel’s motion to reopen. Patel argues that his

immigration proceedings should have been reopened because under 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.14(a), the immigration court lacked jurisdiction due to the fact that his initial

Notice to Appear (NTA) did not contain the time and location of his hearing. This

argument is foreclosed by precedent. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39

F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (explaining that § 1003.14(a) is a

“nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule” and that “the filing of an undated NTA

that is subsequently supplemented with a notice of hearing fully complies with the

requirements of that regulation”); see also id. at 1188 (“[T]he failure of an NTA to

include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject

matter jurisdiction.”); Aguilar Fermin, 958 F.3d at 895 (rejecting jurisdictional

argument where the initial NTA did not provide a date, time, or place); Karingithi v.

Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that Pereira v. Sessions,

138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) “simply has no application” when considering the

immigration court’s jurisdiction).

      We further note that after receiving his initial NTA, Patel received a

supplemental Notice of Hearing, which contained time and location information.

Patel also personally attended that hearing. Patel’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of

his motion to reopen fails.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           2