Graciela Manzo Valladares; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRACIELA MANZO VALLADARES; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70621
Agency Nos. A216-182-442
A216-182-443
A216-182-444
A216-182-445
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 10, 2023 **
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Graciela Manzo Valladares (Manzo), on behalf of herself and her three minor
children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge
* 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
MAY 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
(IJ) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and remand in part, based on the
government’s unopposed motion to remand to the BIA for further proceedings.
1. Manzo argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to enter a
removal order because the Notice to Appear (NTA) she received did not contain the
location, date, and time of her removal hearing. This argument fails under circuit
precedent. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.
2022) (en banc) (“[D]efects in an NTA . . . have no bearing on an immigration
court’s adjudicatory authority.”). With respect to this claim, we deny the petition
for review.
2. As to the other claims, the government has filed an unopposed motion
to remand this case to the BIA so that the BIA may consider our recent decision in
Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1223 (9th Cir. 2023), which holds that “the
BIA must review de novo whether a persecutor’s motives meet the nexus legal
standards.” Id. at 1231. We grant the government’s motion and remand to the BIA.
Per the unopposed motion, the parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, and
petitioners’ removal shall be stayed pending the BIA’s decision.
PETITION DENIED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --