Oscar Douglas Hernandez- Rosas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR DOUGLAS HERNANDEZ-
ROSAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72408
Agency No. A070-158-485
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Douglas Hernandez-Rosas, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motion to reopen for termination of proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
* 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
MAY 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-72408
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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Hernandez-Rosas’s contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction under
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1988)
(deferring to regulations to establish requirements to provide notice of the
deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(b) (1993) (not requiring the time or
place at which proceedings will be held to be included in the order to show cause);
see also Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (rejecting
contention that lack of hearing information in notice to appear deprived
immigration court of jurisdiction).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening
because Hernandez-Rosas does not otherwise raise a legal or constitutional error
that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th
Cir. 2016) (the court retains jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua
sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the
decision for legal or constitutional error).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --