Victor Ivan Hernandez Marquez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR IVAN HERNANDEZ MARQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72510
Agency No. A205-322-721
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 23, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Victor Ivan Hernandez Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, received a
Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him with removability for entry without
inspection. The NTA did not contain the time, date, location of the hearing, or the
address of the court in which the NTA was filed. The immigration court later
* 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
JAN 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
circulated a Notice of Hearing with notice of the time, date, and location of the
hearing, and the address of the court.
Hernandez applied for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Hernandez
did not qualify for relief and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision.
Hernandez petitioned for review of the BIA decision, arguing that the
immigration court did not have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because
the NTA did not contain the time, date, and location of the hearing, nor the address
of the court.
We review questions of law de novo. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070,
1076 (9th Cir. 2020). The immigration court has jurisdiction over a removal
proceeding even if the original NTA does not contain the date, time, and location
of the hearing. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192 (9th Cir.
2022) (en banc); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir.
2020); Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019). The
immigration court had jurisdiction. Hernandez did not challenge the BIA’s
holding on any other basis. Thus, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --