NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIPE LOPEZ-CAMARILLO, No. 18-71162 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-917-718 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: BEA, THAPAR,*** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Felipe Lopez-Camarillo has illegally entered the United States from Mexico nine times. During his most recent stay, he was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Immigration officers picked him up during a traffic stop a * 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 Amul R. Thapar, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. few months later. Lopez-Camarillo admitted that he had entered the United States illegally, and the Department of Homeland Security began the removal process. Initially, Lopez-Camarillo agreed that he was removable to Mexico. His lawyer conceded removability and asked for voluntary departure and an opportunity to seek prosecutorial discretion. But when Lopez-Camarillo got a new lawyer, he changed his tune: He moved to withdraw his lawyer’s concession of removability and to suppress all evidence obtained during the traffic stop (including his statement that he had entered the country illegally). The immigration judge denied his motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Lopez-Camarillo now petitions for review. We review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008). When the Board adopts part of the immigration judge’s decision, we review that part of the immigration judge’s decision under the same standards. See id. Lopez-Camarillo raises three arguments in his petition: (1) the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to issue an order of removability, (2) the Board erred by holding that Lopez-Camarillo cannot withdraw his attorney’s concession of removability, and (3) the Board erred by denying his request to suppress evidence. Finding none persuasive, we deny Lopez-Camarillo’s petition for review. 2 Lack of Jurisdiction. Lopez-Camarillo argues that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to issue an order of removal. Jurisdiction vests with an immigration judge when a valid Notice to Appear is filed. 8 C.F.R § 1003.14(a) (jurisdiction vests when charging document is filed); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (defining charging document to include Notice to Appear). In Lopez-Camarillo’s case, while the government filed a Notice to Appear, it did not enter a time, date, or place for Lopez-Camarillo’s removal proceedings. Lopez-Camarillo argues that under Pereira v. Sessions this omission was fatal. 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2110 (2018). He claims that without a time, date, or place his Notice to Appear is deficient. And without a valid charging document, the immigration judge had ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals