NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE GEORGE MATAGUE, AKA No. 18-72761 Steven George Montague, Agency No. A216-143-469 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Steven Matague, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.1 1. The BIA properly denied Petitioner’s asylum application as untimely because it was not filed within one year of his arrival to the United States, and he did not demonstrate that he qualified for any exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) and (D). Petitioner has forfeited any challenge to this finding by failing to contest it in his opening brief. See Orr v. Plumb, 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018). 2. Where, as here, the BIA relies in part on the IJ’s oral decision, we look to the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA as well as the relevant portions of the IJ 1 Petitioner argues that he was issued an invalid Notice to Appear in removal proceedings because it did not contain the time and place of the initial hearing before the IJ. However, the record establishes that the notice provided the time, date, and location of the hearing, and Petitioner received two additional hearing notices, which again included the time, date, and location of the hearing. Therefore, the immigration court had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s case. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Petitioner also suggests that he was eligible for cancellation of removal, but even assuming he has established the other statutory requirements, Petitioner has not alleged that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, remand is unwarranted on this basis. Finally, Petitioner argues that he was not removable based on committing an aggravated felony because he was only arrested for, and never charged with, committing such a felony. Petitioner was not charged as removable on that basis, so it is irrelevant to his petition. 2 decision that support those reasons. See Rodriguez-Jimenez v. Garland, 20 F.4th 434, 438 (9th Cir. 2021). To be eligible for withholding of removal, Petitioner must demonstrate …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals