CALDERON ABARCA v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-21No. No. 19-70819

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Calderon Abarca's motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings, as his jurisdictional challenge was foreclosed by prior circuit precedent.

Dario Calderon Abarca, a Mexican citizen, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that rejected his request to reopen his removal case and terminate the proceedings. Calderon Abarca argued that the immigration court lacked authority to hear his case because his Notice to Appear was missing certain information, including the time, date, and location of his hearing. The court rejected this argument based on established precedent holding that omissions in the Notice to Appear do not strip an immigration court of its jurisdictional power.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an immigration court retains jurisdiction when the Notice to Appear omits time, date, or location information
Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings
Whether a motion to terminate removal proceedings may be granted based on jurisdictional defects in the Notice to Appear

Procedural posture

Calderon Abarca petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Dario Calderon Abarca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and the denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Calderon Abarcas motion to reopen and terminate where his contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.