Brenda Ramirez-Cordova v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 12 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRENDA BERNICE No. 20-70397 RAMIREZ-CORDOVA, Agency No. A205-466-331 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney Gen- eral, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued October 22, 2021 Submission Deferred October 25, 2021 Submitted August 10, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,** International Trade Judge. Brenda Bernice Ramirez-Cordova, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing an appeal from an Immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Judge (IJ) order denying withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. She asks us to find that the agency lacked jurisdiction over her case under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), or alternatively to remand for her to apply for cancellation of removal in light of Pereira and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). We deny the petition. 1. Ramirez-Cordova argues that the absence of time, date, and location infor- mation in her notice to appear forecloses any agency jurisdiction, citing Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), and Pereira. This argument is foreclosed by our recent en banc decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192–93 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2022), holding that an undated notice to appear later sup- plemented by a notice of hearing does not divest the IJ of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ramirez-Cordova received such a subsequent notice of hearing. Accordingly, both the Immigration Court and the BIA had jurisdiction over her case. 2. Ramirez-Cordova argues, relying on Pereira and Niz-Chavez, that the BIA should have remanded to allow her to apply for cancellation of removal based on the deficient notice to appear. The BIA found the record contained “no indication that an application for cancellation of removal (Form I-485) was filed with the Immigra- tion Judge or that the Immigration Judge rendered any findings regarding such an application.” It therefore treated her argument as a request to remand. 2 The BIA, however, requires motions to remand to conform to the substantive standards applicable to motions to reopen removal proceedings. See Matter of Coe- lho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 471 (BIA 1992). That in turn means a motion “for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appro- priate application for relief and all supporting documentation.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). As the BIA found, while Ramirez-Cordova’s brief addressed the rea- sons for a remand, she did not attach a completed cancellation application or any evidence supporting her claim of eligibility for cancellation as required by the regu- lation. The BIA therefore permissibly denied her request to remand.1 3. …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals