NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVAN VELAZCO CASTELLANO, No. 19-70458 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-056-436 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 19, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge. Ivan Velazco Castellano petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial * 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 Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. of his motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part. Velazco Castellano was placed in removal proceedings in 2012 after he was stopped by police and questioned by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officer. The ICE officer completed a Form I-213 stating that Velazco Castellano admitted he was a Mexican citizen who had entered the United States without inspection. Velazco Castellano asserted that he had been stopped and questioned in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and he moved to suppress the I- 213 and terminate removal proceedings. The IJ denied the motion. Velazco Castellano appealed to the BIA, and the BIA remanded the proceedings to the IJ for further factfinding and analysis. The IJ held another hearing and again denied the motion to suppress evidence and to terminate proceedings. The BIA then dismissed Velazco Castellano’s appeal. When the BIA “conducts its own review of the evidence and law,” our review “is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). We review constitutional questions and questions of law de novo. Sanchez v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 643, 649 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)). 2 1. Velazco Castellano contends that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was defective. This argument is foreclosed by our case law. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160–62 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that jurisdiction vests with service of the NTA even if the NTA is missing the hearing date and time as long as the noncitizen timely receives proper notice of these details); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893–95 (9th Cir. 2020). 2. Velazco Castellano also contends that the IJ violated the BIA’s remand order by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his Fourth Amendment claim. An …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals