NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERARDO FRANCISCO NAVAS, No. 19-71279 Petitioner, Agency No. A074 218 742 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,*** District Judge. Petitioner Gerardo Francisco Navas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection as a child in or about 1987. He obtained * 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 Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. legal permanent resident status on April 12, 1996. On March 26, 2018, Petitioner was served with a notice to appear (“NTA”) alleging that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony in 2016 and was consequently removable. The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Petitioner removable. Subsequently, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. Petitioner also filed a motion to terminate proceedings, arguing that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the NTA did not include a date, time, or location of the hearing. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to terminate. Following his individual hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), challenging only the IJ’s determination that he was ineligible for CAT relief. The BIA dismissed his appeal. The petition for review before us argues that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the NTA was deficient; that the IJ erred in finding that Petitioner’s conviction was for a “particularly serious crime”; and that the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not show a likelihood of torture was not supported by substantial evidence. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in in part. 2 19-71279 In his appeal to the BIA, Petitioner did not claim that the NTA was deficient.1 Assuming Petitioner’s failure to exhaust this purportedly jurisdictional challenge is not a bar to relief, Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1202 (9th Cir. 2017), the argument is directly foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [the petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over [their] case.”). Petitioner also did not challenge before the BIA the IJ’s determination that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is consequently ineligible for withholding of removal. Therefore, he has failed to exhaust the issue and we have no jurisdiction to decide it. Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals