Salvador Cabrera Arvizo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR CABRERA ARVIZO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1389
Agency No.
A215-562-512
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2023**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Cabrera Arvizo, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to
reopen and terminate his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion
* 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
JUL 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1389
to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020), and to
reopen, Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016).
Cabrera Arvizo’s contention that the defect in his Notice to Appear
deprived the immigration judge of jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed
by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022)
(en banc) (“[T]he failure of an NTA to include time and date information does
not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Because Cabrera Arvizo does not challenge the BIA’s determination that
his motion was untimely, we do not address that issue. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Our jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening is
limited to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or
constitutional error.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. Because Cabrera Arvizo has not
demonstrated any legal or constitutional error, we lack jurisdiction. See Lona v.
Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]here is nothing left for us to
review.”).
The temporary stay or removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --