Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARIA DELGADILLO-MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1201
Agency No. A205-467-286
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit
Judges.
Jose Maria Delgadillo-Mejia petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order refusing to sua sponte reopen his removal
proceedings. “When the BIA denies sua sponte reopening . . . as a matter of
discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision, although we retain
jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening for ‘legal or
* 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 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1201
constitutional error.’” Rubalcaba v. Garland, 998 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.
2021) (quoting Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2020)).
Delgadillo-Mejia argues only that the BIA legally erred by determining
that the Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which omitted the time and location
information required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), did not deprive the
immigration judge of jurisdiction over his removal proceedings. This argument
is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1191–92
(9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that an NTA’s failure to comply with the
requirements under § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i) does not deprive the immigration court
of jurisdiction), cert. denied, No. 22-6281, 2023 WL 350056 (U.S. Jan. 23,
2023).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --