VILLANUEVA PEREZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-23No. No. 19-70664

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. The immigration court retained jurisdiction over the removal proceedings despite the Notice to Appear's failure to designate the specific court, because a later hearing notice supplied the missing information.

Salvador Villanueva-Perez, a Mexican citizen, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and an inadmissibility waiver. On appellate review, Villanueva-Perez did not raise arguments about the merits of his three applications in his opening brief, thereby forfeiting any challenge to those claims. He instead argued that the immigration court lacked authority to hear his removal case because his Notice to Appear failed to identify which immigration court would handle the proceedings, as required by regulation. The court rejected this argument, finding that subsequent hearing notices provided the missing court designation, curing the initial defect and preserving the immigration court's jurisdiction.

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

Key issues

Waiver of claims not raised in opening brief on appeal
Whether omission of immigration court designation in Notice to Appear strips the court of jurisdiction
Adequacy of subsequent hearing notices to cure jurisdictional defects in initial notice

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of multiple relief applications and dismissal of the appeal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Villanueva-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and a § 212(h) inadmissibility waiver. Villanueva-Perez now petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

In his opening brief, Villanueva-Perez does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agencys determinations regarding his claims for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, or a § 212(h) inadmissibility waiver. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a partys opening brief are waived).

Villanueva-Perez argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) failed to designate the court where the NTA would be filed, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(b)(6). This argument is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, which held that such a failure does not strip the immigration court of jurisdiction if a subsequent hearing notice provides the missing information. 958 F.3d 887, 894-95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, although the original NTA did not designate the immigration court, this error was cured by subsequent hearing notices.

As stated in the courts August 2, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.