Donald Gallegos-Arevalo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD GALLEGOS-AREVALO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70596
Agency No. A205-788-808
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Donald Gallegos-Arevalo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and protection under the
* 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
NOV 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Gallegos-Arevalo contends that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the notice
to appear the government served on him omitted the date and time of his hearing.
That argument is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,
1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that a lack of hearing information in
a notice to appear does not deprive an immigration court of subject matter
jurisdiction and that the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) are satisfied when a
later notice provides the hearing information).
Gallegos-Arevalo also contends that, by omitting the date and time of his
hearing, his notice to appear violated a mandatory claim-processing rule and that
this error requires termination of his removal proceedings. That argument fails
because Gallegos-Arevalo has not shown that the omission of that information in
the notice to appear prejudiced him. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1228
(9th Cir. 2021) (holding that harmless error principles apply to our review of
immigration agency decisions). He received actual notice through a later
supplemental document and appeared at every one of his scheduled hearings.
To the extent that Gallegos-Arevalo contends that the proceedings before the
IJ violated his due process rights—or that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial
of Gallegos-Arevalo’s asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and CAT claims—those arguments are deemed abandoned because he does not
develop them with any specificity or support them with any record citations. See
Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125, n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a claim that is
not addressed with any specificity in a brief is deemed abandoned).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --