Sabino Hernandez Garcia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABINO HERNANDEZ GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70142
Agency No. A205-600-694
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sabino Hernandez Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and
* 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
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70142
the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Garcia’s motion
to reconsider where his contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction
over his proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th
1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice
to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8
C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez Garcia’s motion
to reopen where he failed to establish the requisite hardship for relief. See Garcia
v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010) (a motion to reopen will not be
granted absent a showing of prima facie eligibility for relief based on
demonstrating “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief
have been satisfied” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --