JUAN TORRES VALENCIA V. ROBERT WILKINSON, No. 19-71111 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN MANUEL TORRES VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-71111 Agency No. A090-521-994 MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 19-71111

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.