FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUVENAL LEON-MONDRAGON, No. 19-71774 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-093-666 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 14, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Juvenal Leon-Mondragon appeals from the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings that resulted in a grant of voluntary departure in 2003. We have jurisdiction to review denials of motions to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). See Flores v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). But we may consider a petition for review challenging such a denial only if the petitioner has “exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “Exhaustion requires a non-constitutional legal claim to the court on appeal to have first been raised in the administrative proceedings below” and “to have been sufficient to put the BIA on notice of what was being challenged.” Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted). We review the denial of reopening for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the denial is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Flores, 930 F.3d at 1087. We “review purely legal questions de novo.” Id. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. I We lack jurisdiction to review Leon-Mondragon’s argument, raised for the first time in his petition for review, that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) that initiated those proceedings did not identify the “address of the Immigration Court” where the NTA was filed, as 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(b) requires. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 n.2 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (explaining that a petitioner’s failure to present a claim to the BIA “generally bars 2 us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits” of that claim). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition insofar as it presents an unexhausted argument in challenging the agency’s jurisdiction. II The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not err in declining to terminate Leon-Mondragon’s removal proceedings, where the NTA that initiated those proceedings omitted the time, date, and place of the initial removal hearing, but Leon-Mondragon subsequently received a notice of hearing containing that information and “attended all removal hearings thereafter.” See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[A]n initial NTA need not contain time, date, and place information to vest an immigration court with jurisdiction if such information is provided before the hearing.”); see …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals