Humberto Terrazas-Morales v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUMBERTO TERRAZAS-MORALES, No. 18-73243
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-403-448
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2023**
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Humberto Terrazas-Morales petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for abuse of discretion. See
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition.
*
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).
Terrazas-Morales’s main argument is that the BIA erred in rejecting his
argument that his Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which omitted the date and time of
his hearing, deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. This argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192 (9th Cir.
2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023). Thus, the BIA did not err in
denying the motion for reconsideration.
Terrazas-Morales also argues, separate from his jurisdictional argument, that
the NTA’s lack of the date and time information rendered the NTA invalid (even
though he later received a notice of hearing that supplied the date and time
information and appeared at the hearing with his counsel). According to Terrazas-
Morales, because the NTA was invalid, the agency had to terminate the
proceedings. This argument fails in light of Bastide-Hernandez. See id. at 1193 &
n.9 (recognizing that an NTA that lacks date and time information but is later cured
by a notice of hearing suffices to commence proceedings before an immigration
judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a)).
PETITION DENIED.
2