Rogelio Reyes Rodriguez v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 10 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROGELIO REYES RODRIGUEZ,                        No.    19-71798
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-920-648
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Rogelio Reyes Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to
    reopen and terminate proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
    a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
    
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
    *
    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).
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, where Reyes
    Rodriguez’s contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his
    proceedings is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 
    913 F.3d 1158
    , 1160-62 (9th
    Cir. 2019) and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 
    958 F.3d 887
     (9th Cir. 2020) (notice to
    appear “need not contain time, date, and place information to vest an immigration
    court with jurisdiction if such information is provided before the hearing”), and we
    are not persuaded that termination of proceedings is otherwise required.
    Reyes Rodriguez asks us to reconsider Karingithi, but we are bound by that
    decision given the absence of any “intervening higher authority” that is “clearly
    irreconcilable” with it. Miller v. Gammie, 
    335 F.3d 889
    , 892-93 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (en banc).
    As stated in the court’s September 13, 2019, order, the temporary stay of
    removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
    PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   19-71798
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-71798

Filed Date: 9/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2020