Maria Baltazar v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA PEDRO BALTAZAR; et al., No. 20-72143 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-599-344 A208-599-345 v. A208-599-346 A208-599-347 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 16, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: LEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Petitioners Maria Baltazar and her three minor children are natives and citizens of Guatemala who came to the United States in 2015. They tried to enter * 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. without valid documentation and were placed into removal proceedings. Petitioners conceded removability but applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Petitioners filed a motion to terminate their proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. An immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications and motion to terminate, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal. Petitioners timely sought this court’s review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.1 1. The immigration court had subject matter jurisdiction. A notice to appear (NTA) “that does not specify the time and place of an alien’s initial removal hearing vests an Immigration Judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings . . . so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien.” Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that an NTA’s failure to include the address of the immigration court also does not affect subject matter jurisdiction where subsequent notices provide that information). In this case, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Petitioners with 1 Petitioners abandoned their CAT claim before the BIA, and that claim is therefore not before us. 2 incomplete NTAs on October 29, 2015, but DHS afterwards served Petitioners on December 2, 2015 with notices of hearing that stated the date, time, and location of their hearing (which Baltazar attended in person). Thus, under Karingithi and Aguilar Fermin, jurisdiction properly vested in the immigration court. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish the required nexus for asylum or withholding of removal. See Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2015). Applicants must establish a nexus between the persecution suffered and a protected ground, such as “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or …

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