RIOS ZAMORA v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-22No. No. 19-70859

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing the appeal is affirmed.

Gerardo Rios Zamora, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. Rios Zamora argued that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his case based on deficiencies in his Notice to Appear. The court rejected this argument, finding that jurisdictional defects in the Notice to Appear can be remedied through subsequent hearing notices under existing precedent.

Rios Zamora also failed to meaningfully challenge the agency's factual findings that he did not qualify for any of the three forms of relief he sought in his opening brief to the court. By not specifically raising and arguing these substantive challenges, he waived them. The court therefore had no basis to overturn the agency's determinations on the merits.

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

Key issues

Whether omissions in a Notice to Appear deprive an immigration judge of jurisdiction
Whether failure to challenge agency factual findings in an opening brief constitutes waiver
Eligibility for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief

Procedural posture

Rios Zamora petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of relief applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Gerardo Rios Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to terminate, and we review de novo questions of law. 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 Rios Zamoras request to terminate proceedings, where his contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from Notice to Appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).

In his opening brief, Rios Zamora does not raise any challenge to the agencys determinations that he did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. 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).

As stated in the courts June 14, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.