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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2023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. 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