NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUANA ANTONIO No. 21-879 FRANCISCO; RICARDO ANDRES Agency Nos. ANTONIO; PELEGRINA ANDRES A208-311-660 ANTONIO; JESICA ANTONIO A208-311-661 FRANCISCO; JUANA ANDRES A208-311-662 ANTONIO; SEBASTIANA ANDRES A208-311-663 ANTONIO, A216-217-501 A216-217-502 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Juana Antonio Francisco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration * 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). Judge’s (IJ) denial of her request for relief from deportation under asylum, withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The petition for review is denied. Francisco is a member of the indigenous Kanjobal tribe in Guatemala. She entered the United States without valid immigration documentation on August 16, 2015, with some of her children, including one with a congenital heart condition. Almost two years after her arrival, Francisco applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ concluded that the asylum filing was untimely and that Francisco did not qualify for an exception to the one-year filing rule based on changed or extraordinary circumstances. The IJ alternatively reached the merits of the asylum and withholding claims, concluding that Francisco had not established past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or any nexus to a protected ground. For the same reasons, the IJ found her CAT claim failed. On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. This court reviews the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). First, Francisco argues that the agency had no jurisdiction over the removal proceedings because the Notices to Appear (NTAs) did not include the date, time, 1 In addition to relief for herself, Francisco seeks relief on behalf of five of her children as derivative beneficiaries. 2 21-879 or location of an initial hearing. Francisco and her children initially received NTAs ordering their appearance “at a place and time to be determined,” or a date “to be set,” but the immigration court later provided the particular date, time, and place of the hearings. In a nearly identical case, the Ninth Circuit ruled en banc that an NTA lacking the time and date of a petitioner’s removal hearing was still sufficient to vest subject-matter jurisdiction in an immigration court. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1194 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023). If the details are not included in the initial …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals