Jose Guadalupe Espinoza-Rosales filed a petition for review seeking to overturn a Board of Immigration Appeals order that denied his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. He had originally sought to apply for cancellation of removal, a form of relief available to certain non-citizens who have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period and can demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives. The Board denied his motion, and Espinoza-Rosales challenged this decision on three primary grounds: that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction due to defects in his Notice to Appear, that the Board unreasonably delayed its adjudication, and that the Board abused its discretion by denying an unopposed motion.
The panel unanimously denied the petition, addressing each of the petitioner's arguments in turn. First, regarding jurisdiction, the court rejected the claim that defects in the Notice to Appear deprived the immigration court of authority. This argument is foreclosed by the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, which established that 'defects in an NTA . . . have no bearing on an immigration court’s adjudicatory authority.' Second, the court addressed the claim of unreasonable delay. The petitioner argued the Board took seventy-six days to adjudicate his motion, but the court noted he cited no law or regulation requiring a specific timeframe. Citing Mendez-Garcia v. Lynch, the court reiterated that 'procedural delays, such as routine processing delays, do not deprive aliens of a substantive liberty or property interest unless the aliens have a legitimate claim of entitlement to have their applications adjudicated within a specified time.' Finally, the court addressed the claim of abuse of discretion regarding the denial of an unopposed motion. The court cited Limsico v. INS, noting that the Board does not abuse its discretion in denying unopposed motions. Furthermore, a petitioner seeking reopening must 'establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.' The Board concluded Espinoza-Rosales did not meet the requirements for cancellation of removal, and because he did not meaningfully challenge this conclusion in his opening brief, he forfeited the issue.
The petition is denied, and the stay of removal will be vacated upon the issuance of the mandate. This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's stance that technical defects in the Notice to Appear do not invalidate removal proceedings and clarifies that the Board of Immigration Appeals has no statutory obligation to adjudicate motions to reopen within a fixed number of days. It also confirms that petitioners must substantively prove their eligibility for relief to succeed on a motion to reopen, even if the motion is unopposed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download