NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICANDRO SANCHEZ-PATRON, No. 21-70950 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-868-338 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 7, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Nicandro Sanchez-Patron1 petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) * 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). 1 In a declaration attached to his motion to reopen, Sanchez-Patron stated that his name is “Ricardo” and that he has two aliases, “Nicandro Sanchez Patrón” and “Ricardo Aquino.” decision denying his motion to reopen a deportation order from 1994. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. We first consider the government’s request that we take judicial notice of a decision reinstating a September 12, 1994 deportation order against “Ricardo Sanchez-Patron aka: Sanchez-Patron, Nicando,” in file number “207 471 236” (the “reinstatement order”). We may take judicial notice of the agency’s own records, even when those records were not part of the administrative record in proceedings before the BIA. See Lising v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 1997); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 370–71 (9th Cir. 2010). We therefore grant the government’s motion for judicial notice. Sanchez-Patron resists this result, but we find none of his arguments persuasive. Sanchez-Patron first contends that the reinstatement order should not be considered because it “is not part of the administrative record.” But, as already explained, the agency’s own records are subject to judicial notice regardless of whether they are in the administrative record. See id. Sanchez-Patron’s related argument—that judicial notice is improper because the IJ and BIA “did not base their decisions on any reinstatement of removal order”—fares no better because it is squarely foreclosed by Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland, 32 F.4th 806, 809–10 (9th Cir. 2022) (taking judicial notice of an extra- record reinstatement order even though the BIA did not rely on that order in 2 denying the petitioner’s motion to reopen). Sanchez-Patron next suggests that there is not enough evidence in the record to establish that he is the individual named in the reinstatement order, but this suggestion strains credulity. Sanchez-Patron previously admitted that he “has been known by two aliases,” including “Nicandro Sanchez Patrón,” and that he “has two A#s,” which he identified as “072 868 338” and “207 471 236.” The reinstatement order references Sanchez-Patron’s actual name and alias, lists one of his two A-file numbers, and reinstates a September 12, 1994 deportation order entered in San Diego, California, which matches the deportation order in the administrative record. We thus have …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals