Griselda Fernandez-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland
This text of Griselda Fernandez-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland (Griselda Fernandez-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRISELDA FERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 19-73057
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-551-973
v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Griselda Fernandez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
terminate proceedings and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under
* 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
In her opening brief, Fernandez-Sanchez does not raise any challenge to the
agency’s denial of her motion for a continuance. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued
in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Fernandez-Sanchez’s
motion to terminate removal proceedings, where her challenges to the immigration
court’s jurisdiction are foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159
(9th Cir. 2019), and Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 n.4 (9th Cir. 2020),
because she received a notice of hearing that included the time, date, and place of
the hearing.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-73057
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Griselda Fernandez-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griselda-fernandez-sanchez-v-merrick-garland-ca9-2022.