NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAN CATALINO RAMIREZ No. 18-71116 HERNANDEZ, Agency No. A205-721-951 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2023** Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Adan Catalino Ramirez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Torture (“CAT”). This court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and dismisses the petition in part and denies the petition in part. 1. The immigration court had jurisdiction over the removal proceedings against Ramirez Hernandez. Ramirez Hernandez contends that the immigration court did not have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) served on him lacked the necessary “time and place” information, and as a result, the proceedings should be terminated. However, Bastide-Hernandez clearly holds that “defects in an NTA . . . have no bearing on an immigration court’s adjudicatory authority,” and that is true even if it is “unclear” whether the alien ever received a notice of hearing supplying the missing date and time information.1 39 F.4th 1187, 1189 (2022). Accordingly, the immigration court had jurisdiction over his proceedings. 2. The denial of Ramirez Hernandez’s application for cancellation of removal was based on a discretionary determination; therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review his petition as to that claim. See Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that this court “lack[s] jurisdiction to review a decision by the BIA denying an alien’s application for cancellation of removal in 1 In this case, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Ramirez Hernandez with an incomplete NTA on December 10, 2013, but DHS later served Ramirez Hernandez on December 11, 2013, with a notice of hearing that stated the date, time, and location of his hearing. 2 the exercise of discretion”). Here, the IJ explained that even if Ramirez Hernandez were statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal, he would deny his application because the factors supporting an exercise of discretion in Ramirez Hernandez’s favor are outweighed by the factors weighing against such an exercise of discretion, including his “tendency to drink and engage in violent behavior toward his domestic partners” and his evasion of the U.S. criminal justice system. This court does, however, retain “jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a BIA decision denying cancellation of removal only if the constitutional claim is colorable, i.e., if it has …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals