Navas v. Barr, 062620 FED9, 19-71279

Docket Nº:19-71279
Party Name:GERARDO FRANCISCO NAVAS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, District Judge.
Case Date:June 26, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

GERARDO FRANCISCO NAVAS, Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 19-71279

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 26, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 12, 2020 [**] San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A074 218 742

Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, [***] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Petitioner Gerardo Francisco Navas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection as a child in or about 1987. He obtained legal permanent resident status on April 12, 1996. On March 26, 2018, Petitioner was served with a notice to appear ("NTA") alleging that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony in 2016 and was consequently removable.

The immigration judge ("IJ") found Petitioner removable. Subsequently, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture ("CAT") relief. Petitioner also filed a motion to terminate proceedings, arguing that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the NTA did not include a date, time, or location of the hearing. The IJ denied Petitioner's motion to terminate. Following his individual hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), challenging only the IJ's determination that he was ineligible for CAT relief. The BIA dismissed his appeal.

The petition for review before us argues that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the NTA was deficient; that the IJ erred in finding that Petitioner's conviction was for a "particularly serious crime"; and that the BIA's determination that Petitioner did not show a likelihood of torture was not supported by substantial evidence. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in in part.

In his appeal to the BIA, Petitioner did not claim that the NTA was deficient.1Assuming Petitioner's failure to exhaust this purportedly jurisdictional challenge is not a bar to relief, Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1202 (9th Cir. 2017), the argument is directly foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) ("[T]he lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [the petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over [their] case.").

Petitioner...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP