NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISMELDA PATRICIA SORIANO RUIZ; et No. 19-71349 al., Agency Nos. A202-097-278 Petitioners, A202-097-279 A202-097-280 v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting MEMORANDUM* Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, MILLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Ismelda Soriano Ruiz and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of * 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). removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition. 1. Our precedent forecloses the argument that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction because the notices to appear did not specify the time and place of the hearing. “[T]he jurisdiction of the immigration court vests upon the filing of an NTA, even one that does not at that time inform the alien of the time, date, and location of the hearing.” United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 986 F.3d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 2021). 2. Soriano Ruiz’s placement in standard removal proceedings without a credible-fear interview did not violate due process. “The government has discretion to place noncitizens in standard removal proceedings even if the expedited removal statute could be applied to them.” Flores v. Barr, 934 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 2019). And because Soriano Ruiz was “given a full and fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, to prepare an application for . . . relief, and to present testimony and other evidence in support of the application,” she received all that due process requires. Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2007). In any event, Soriano Ruiz cannot show prejudice. See id. at 926. If Soriano Ruiz had been given a credible-fear interview and found credible, she would have received “full consideration” of her claims in a standard removal hearing—the very process she received from the outset by bypassing the agency’s expedited removal procedures. See DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1964– 2 66 (2020) (citation omitted). Nor did the immigration judge lack jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 208.2. Section 208.2(b) provides that an immigration judge “shall have exclusive jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by an alien who has been served a . . . Form I-862, Notice to Appear,” with which Soriano Ruiz and her children were served. 3. Soriano Ruiz claims that the immigration judge abused his discretion by denying a continuance to consolidate her and her children’s cases with that of her husband, Francis Rivera. In assessing whether the immigration judge abused his discretion, we consider “(1) the nature of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals