Juan Manuel Torres Valencia v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MANUEL TORRES VALENCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71111
Agency No. A090-521-994
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Torres Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to
* 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
FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71111
reconsider, Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017), and the denial
of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres Valencia’s motion to
reconsider and terminate, because Torres Valencia’s contentions that the
immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings are foreclosed
by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) and Aguilar
Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date,
and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of
jurisdiction over her case”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 8) is
otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --