DONALD GALLEGOS-AREVALO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 21-70596 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 21 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD GALLEGOS-AREVALO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-70596 Agency No. A205-788-808 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2022** San Jose, California Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Donald Gallegos-Arevalo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Gallegos-Arevalo contends that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear the government served on him omitted the date and time of his hearing. That argument is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that a lack of hearing information in a notice to appear does not deprive an immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction and that the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) are satisfied when a later notice provides the hearing information). Gallegos-Arevalo also contends that, by omitting the date and time of his hearing, his notice to appear violated a mandatory claim-processing rule and that this error requires termination of his removal proceedings. That argument fails because Gallegos-Arevalo has not shown that the omission of that information in the notice to appear prejudiced him. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that harmless error principles apply to our review of immigration agency decisions). He received actual notice through a later supplemental document and appeared at every one of his scheduled hearings. To the extent that Gallegos-Arevalo contends that the proceedings before the IJ violated his due process rights—or that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of Gallegos-Arevalo’s asylum, withholding of removal, cancellation of removal, 2 and CAT claims—those arguments are deemed abandoned because he does not develop them with any specificity or support them with any record citations. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125, n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a claim that is not addressed with any specificity in a brief is deemed abandoned). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
