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 was denied.

Gerardo Rios Zamora, a Mexican citizen, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that upheld an immigration judge's denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. Rios Zamora also sought to terminate the proceedings, arguing the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the termination request, as prior precedent established that omissions in the initial notice could be cured through subsequent hearing notices. Additionally, because Rios Zamora failed to raise specific arguments in his opening brief challenging the agency's factual findings on the three forms of relief sought, those arguments were forfeited under appellate rules regarding waiver of unraised issues.

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

Key issues

Whether the immigration judge had jurisdiction despite alleged defects in the Notice to Appear
Whether cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and CAT relief were properly denied
Whether a request to terminate proceedings was properly denied

Procedural posture

Rios Zamora petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of relief from removal.

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.