Delgadillo-Mejia v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE MARIA DELGADILLO-MEJIA, No. 21-1201 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-467-286 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 11, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order refusing to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. “When the BIA denies sua sponte reopening . . . as a matter of discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision, although we retain jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening for ‘legal or * 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). constitutional error.’” Rubalcaba v. Garland, 998 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2020)). Delgadillo-Mejia argues only that the BIA legally erred by determining that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which omitted the time and location information required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), did not deprive the immigration judge of jurisdiction over his removal proceedings. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1191–92 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that an NTA’s failure to comply with the requirements under § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction), cert. denied, No. 22-6281, 2023 WL 350056 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2023). PETITION DENIED. 2 21-1201