United States v. 2020-09-10 | 19-71798 | ROGELIO REYES RODRIGUEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROGELIO REYES RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71798

Agency No. A205-920-648

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Rogelio Reyes Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to
reopen and terminate proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

*
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).
FILED

SEP 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71798
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, where Reyes
Rodriguez’s contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th
Cir. 2019) and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020) (notice to
appear “need not contain time, date, and place information to vest an immigration
court with jurisdiction if such information is provided before the hearing”), and we
are not persuaded that termination of proceedings is otherwise required.
Reyes Rodriguez asks us to reconsider Karingithi, but we are bound by that
decision given the absence of any “intervening higher authority” that is “clearly
irreconcilable” with it. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2003)
(en banc).
As stated in the court’s September 13, 2019, order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.