Luis Cabrera-Campos v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 21 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LUIS CABRERA-CAMPOS, AKA Luis                   No.    19-71212
    Campos-Cabrera, AKA Jesus Garcia
    Miranda,                                        Agency No. A099-625-275
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 14, 2021**
    Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Luis Cabrera-Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
    and terminate removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252.
    *
    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).
    We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
    Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and the denial of a motion to terminate,
    Dominguez v. Barr, 
    975 F.3d 725
    , 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
    review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cabrera-Campos’ motion to
    reopen and terminate where his contention that the immigration court lacked
    jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 
    958 F.3d 887
    , 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to
    [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
    In light of this disposition, we need not reach Cabrera-Campos’ contentions
    regarding the timeliness of his motion. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    ,
    538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the
    results they reach).
    The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
    mandate.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    19-71212
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-71212

Filed Date: 9/21/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2021