Hiren Patel v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HIREN JAGDISH PATEL, No. 19-70460
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-389-469
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 26, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Hiren Patel petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying a motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We review
the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and purely legal questions
de novo. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020).
*
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 BIA did not err in denying Patel’s motion to reopen. Patel argues that his
immigration proceedings should have been reopened because under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.14(a), the immigration court lacked jurisdiction due to the fact that his initial
Notice to Appear (NTA) did not contain the time and location of his hearing. This
argument is foreclosed by precedent. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39
F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (explaining that § 1003.14(a) is a
“nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule” and that “the filing of an undated NTA
that is subsequently supplemented with a notice of hearing fully complies with the
requirements of that regulation”); see also id. at 1188 (“[T]he failure of an NTA to
include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject
matter jurisdiction.”); Aguilar Fermin, 958 F.3d at 895 (rejecting jurisdictional
argument where the initial NTA did not provide a date, time, or place); Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that Pereira v. Sessions,
138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) “simply has no application” when considering the
immigration court’s jurisdiction).
We further note that after receiving his initial NTA, Patel received a
supplemental Notice of Hearing, which contained time and location information.
Patel also personally attended that hearing. Patel’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of
his motion to reopen fails.
PETITION DENIED.
2