FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 12 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE LUIS VAZQUEZ-MIRANDA, No. 23-1590

Petitioner, Agency No. A209-809-611 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2024** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: RAWLINSON and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

* 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Jorge Luis Vazquez-Miranda (“Vazquez-Miranda”), a native and citizen of

Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen, reconsider, and terminate his removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recount

them here except as necessary to provide context.

Vazquez-Miranda’s argument that his removal proceedings should have been

terminated for lack of jurisdiction because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira

v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198, 202 (2018), is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-

Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), in which we held that the

Immigration and Nationality Act’s time and place requirement “is a claim-processing

rule” not “implicating the [immigration] court’s adjudicatory authority,” id. at 1191.

Accordingly, although Vazquez-Miranda’s initial notice to appear did not specify the

time and place of his initial removal hearing and he was provided with that

information only in a later notice of hearing, the BIA did not err when it denied his

motion.

PETITION DENIED.

-2-