ASIF MUHAMMED, ET AL V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-73465 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 20 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ASIF MUHAMMED; FARHANA ASIF, Petitioners, No. 18-73465 Agency Nos. A079-628-793 A079-628-794 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: D.M. FISHER,*** BYBEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. * 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). *** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Petitioners Asif Muhammed and Farhana Asif seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying their second motion to reopen proceedings, a motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings, and a motion to stay removal. The sole issue presented by the petition is whether a Notice to Appear (NTA) that lacks the address of the Immigration Court (IC) in which the NTA is to be filed deprives the IC of jurisdiction over removal proceedings. An en banc panel of this Court recently held that “defects in an NTA likewise have no bearing on an immigration court’s adjudicatory authority.” United States v. BastideHernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023). The Court’s reasoning as to an NTA lacking the time and date of proceedings is equally applicable to an NTA initially omitting the address of the IC in which the NTA is to be filed. After all, “Section 1003.14(a) is a claimprocessing rule not implicating the [immigration] court’s adjudicatory authority, and [this Court] read[s] its reference to ‘jurisdiction’ in a purely colloquial sense.” Id. at 1191. PETITION DENIED. 2

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.