Salvador Villanueva-Perez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR VILLANUEVA-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70664
Agency No. A036-908-040
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Villanueva-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal,
adjustment of status, and a § 212(h) inadmissibility waiver. Villanueva-Perez now
* 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
MAR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70664
petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
In his opening brief, Villanueva-Perez does not raise, and therefore waives,
any challenge to the agency’s determinations regarding his claims for cancellation
of removal, adjustment of status, or a § 212(h) inadmissibility waiver. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Villanueva-Perez argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over
his removal proceedings because his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) failed to designate
the court where the NTA would be filed, in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(b)(6).
This argument is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, which held that such a
failure does not strip the immigration court of jurisdiction if a subsequent hearing
notice provides the missing information. 958 F.3d 887, 894-95 & n.4 (9th Cir.
2020). Here, although the original NTA did not designate the immigration court,
this error was cured by subsequent hearing notices.
As stated in the court’s August 2, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --