NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 5 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL MOLINA DEOCAMPO, No. 16-72298 19-70091 Petitioner, Agency No. A031-252-889 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 1, 2019** Before: McKEOWN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District Judge. Petitioner Raul Molina Deocampo (“Petitioner”) is a native and citizen of the Philippines. He petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals * 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 Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen and terminate his removal proceedings based on the Supreme Court’s holding in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).1 Additionally, although a stay of removal is already in effect, Petitioner again moves the Court to stay his removal. On February 7, 2019, the Government (“Respondent”) filed three motions in response to Petitioner’s petition for review: (1) to consolidate the petitions for review in Nos. 19-70091 and 16-72298, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6); (2) to summarily deny the petition for review in No. 19-70091 under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-6(b) because Petitioner’s position has been foreclosed by this Court’s opinion in Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019); and (3) to suspend filing deadlines where further filings would be futile. On February 19, 2019, Petitioner filed his Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition, and moved for his petition for review in No. 19-70091 to “be heard by the [C]ourt en banc pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”2 On March 1, 2019, the Court granted Respondent’s motions to consolidate and suspend filing deadlines. We have reviewed the record and Petitioner’s filings in this Court, including 1 This is Petitioner’s second petition for review, originally filed under No. 19- 70091. We address the first petition for review (in No. 16-72298) in a separate memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this memorandum disposition. The Court previously consolidated both cases. 2 Petitioner’s Rule 35 request for en banc review is premature. 2 Petitioner’s Opposition. This petition for review is appropriate for summary disposition under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-6 because Petitioner’s argument is foreclosed by Ninth Circuit authority. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (setting standard). Deocampo’s petition for review is denied. Petitioner’s argument that the notice to appear (NTA) that commenced his removal proceeding was insufficiently detailed to vest jurisdiction has already been rejected in Karingithi. See 913 F.3d at 1160. In Karingithi, the Court explained that jurisdiction vests in the Immigration ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals