Rosas v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 24-2238
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENE OTERO ROSAS, No. 24-2238 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-268-975 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 22, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: LEE, BUMATAY, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Rene Otero Rosas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA’s”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denials of (1) his

motion to terminate proceedings due to a deficient Notice to Appear (“NTA”) and

* 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). (2) his motion to suppress evidence stemming from an alleged egregious Fourth

Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial

evidence. B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 835 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the

petition.

1. The agency did not err in denying Otero Rosas’s motion to terminate

removal proceedings based on a deficient notice to appear (“NTA”). When

initiating removal proceedings, the agency must provide the noncitizen with

written notice to appear containing the “time and place at which the proceedings

will be held.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). We have held that this requirement is a

claim-processing rule which does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of

immigration courts over removal proceedings, and which “may be forfeited if the

party asserting the rule waits too long” to raise it. United States v. Bastide-

Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1191–92 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (citation omitted).

Under BIA precedent, “an objection to a noncompliant notice to appear [is] timely

if it is raised prior to the closing of pleadings before the Immigration Judge.”

Matter of Fernandes, 28 I. & N. Dec. 605, 610–11 (B.I.A. 2022). The first NTA

Otero Rosas received was deficient because it failed to specify a time or a place for

him to appear. However, Otero Rosas did not raise an objection to the deficient

NTA until July 15, 2019—four months after the close of pleadings on February 20,

2 24-2238 2019 (when he conceded proper service of the NTA and denied the factual

allegations and charge of removability).1

2. The agency correctly denied Otero Rosas’s motion to suppress

evidence and terminate removal proceedings based on an alleged egregious Fourth

Amendment violation because the stop on February 14, 2018, was not a Fourth

Amendment violation. The BIA adopted the IJ’s findings and analysis on this

issue with no additional analysis. Accordingly, “[w]e review the decisions of both

the BIA and the IJ.” Manzano v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2024)

(citation modified).

The IJ credited the officers’ account that they knew from prior research on

their target (Otero Rosas’s son) that Otero Rosas had a “history of prior voluntary

returns to Mexico,” suggesting he lacked legal status. The IJ also credited the

officers’ account that they recognized Otero Rosas when they saw him enter his car

and suspected he was unlawfully present in the country based on their familiarity

with his immigration history, and that was why they followed his car and stopped

him. Otero Rosas does not challenge the agency’s findings. Based on those

1 Further, the remedy for a deficient NTA ordinarily is not termination. See Matter of Fernandes, 28 I. & N. Dec. at 614 (Immigration Judge “may allow the violating party to remedy the defect without dismissing proceedings.”); Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “the appropriate remedy” when a noncitizen is served a deficient NTA is for the agency to “provid[e] the [noncitizen] . . . with the complete notice at a later time”).

3 24-2238 findings, the officers had reasonable suspicion specific to Otero Rosas when they

conducted the stop. See United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (officers must have reasonable suspicion as to “the

particular person being stopped”). Accordingly, Otero Rosas has not shown there

was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation requiring suppression of the I-213

form. See Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 2011)

(exclusionary rule applies in removal proceedings when there is an “egregious”

Fourth Amendment violation).2

PETITION DENIED.3

2 Petitioner’s motion to supplement or correct the administrative record (Dkt. 28) is denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Jennings v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 2007). Petitioner has not shown that the brief to the BIA was part of the administrative record below and omitted from the record before this court by error or accident. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2). 3 The motion to stay removal (Dkt. 18) is denied. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

4 24-2238