Soliz-Vasquez v. Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO SOLIZ-VASQUEZ, No. 23-1907 Agency No. Petitioner, A213-083-484 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 23, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, OWENS, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Antonio Soliz-Vasquez (“Soliz-Vasquez”), a Mexican national,

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for cancellation of removal.

* 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). Soliz-Vasquez seeks a remand to the IJ, contending that his original Notice to

Appear (“NTA”) was defective under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s

(“INA”) date-and-time requirement, an argument he first raised before the BIA.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand under an abuse-of-discretion

standard. Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2023). We

may reverse only if the BIA’s decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.

Id. We have jurisdiction to review the petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).

We deny the petition.

1. The INA’s requirement that NTAs contain information about “the time

and place at which the proceedings will be held,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), is a

claim-processing rule, and not a requirement related to subject matter jurisdiction.

United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2022) (en

banc). “[T]he Supreme Court has long rejected the notion that all mandatory

prescriptions, however emphatic, are properly typed jurisdictional.” Id. at 1191

(citing Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 146 (2012)) (citation modified). We

have held that an undated NTA, later supplemented with a notice of hearing that

specified the time and date of a removal hearing, was enough to vest jurisdiction in

the immigration court. Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9th Cir.

2019). Thus, a petitioner may forfeit his opportunity to challenge a defective NTA

if he waits too long to object to that NTA’s noncompliance. See Bastide-

2 23-1907 Hernandez, 39 F.4th at 1191; see also Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 15

(2005) (per curiam) (noting that claim-processing rules are not jurisdictional and

may be forfeited).

An objection to a purportedly defective NTA will generally be considered

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). This

standard affords sufficient time for the petitioner to secure counsel and affords the

government the opportunity to remedy a defective NTA prior to the adjudication of

substantive matters, thus minimizing needless delays. Fernandes, 28 I. & N. Dec.

at 610; see also Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 460 (2004) (noting that claim-

processing rules may not be construed to allow litigants to subsequently challenge

a defect “after the party has litigated and lost the case on the merits”).

Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Soliz-Vasquez’s

argument that his noncompliant NTA violated the time-and-place requirement in 8

U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) was untimely.

Soliz-Vasquez’s brief citations to Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155

(2021), and Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), are unavailing. Those cases

addressed the stop-time rule for determining a noncitizen’s accrual of continuous

physical presence for cancellation-of-removal eligibility. Niz-Chavez, 593 U.S. at

172; Pereira, 585 U.S. at 202. That issue is not in play here.

3 23-1907 2. Soliz-Vasquez waived his challenges to the agency’s denial of his

cancellation application by failing to address them in his opening brief

“specifically and distinctly.” Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th. Cir.

2022) (quoting Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020)).

Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Soliz-

Vasquez’s argument that his noncompliant NTA violated the time-and-place

requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) was untimely.

PETITION DENIED.

4 23-1907