Cecilia Aguilar Fermin v. William Barr, 958 F.3d 887

Cecilia Aguilar Fermin (with her minor son) fled Guerrero, Mexico after gang threats tied to efforts to recruit her brother‑in‑law; they entered the U.S. without documents in December 2015.
DHS served an NTA that omitted the time, date, and court address for the initial removal hearing; a supplemental notice with time/place/date was mailed months later and Aguilar appeared.
Aguilar conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the IJ found her testimony not credible and denied relief (alternative findings on nexus, government protection, and internal relocation).
The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s adverse‑credibility and denial rulings; it also denied Aguilar’s motion to reopen after Pereira, concluding the NTA omission was curable by later hearing notice.
The Ninth Circuit denied Aguilar’s petitions for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported denial of asylum/withholding/CAT and (2) Pereira does not strip immigration courts of jurisdiction where later hearing notice supplies omitted information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Aguilar established eligibility for asylum/withholding/CAT	Aguilar claimed past/future threats from gang tied to family membership and that Mexico cannot protect her; therefore asylum/withholding/CAT relief warranted	IJ/BIA: Aguilar was not credible; testimony contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities; she failed to prove nexus, unwilling/unable protection, or inability to internally relocate	Denied — adverse credibility supported by record; BIA/IJ findings not compelledly erroneous; substantial evidence supports denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT (internal relocation feasible)
Whether the defective NTA deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction and warranted reopening under Pereira	Aguilar argued Pereira requires an NTA to include time/date/place and thus her NTA was invalid, so proceedings should be reopened/terminated	Government: Pereira addressed the stop‑time rule (INA), not regulatory vesting of jurisdiction; regulations and circuit precedent (Karingithi) allow curing omissions by later notice; jurisdiction vested when charging document filed and subsequent hearing notices can supply missing details	Denied — Pereira inapplicable to jurisdictional question; omission of time/date/place/address is curable by later Notice of Hearing under regulations and deference to BIA interpretation applies

Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (Supreme Court held an NTA lacking time/place is not an NTA for the stop‑time rule but did not address regulatory vesting of immigration‑court jurisdiction)
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (held Pereira does not control jurisdictional questions under DOJ regulations; an initial NTA need not include time/date if later hearing notice supplies them)
Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2013) (adverse‑credibility finding is conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (inconsistencies that go to the heart of the claim carry great weight in credibility determinations)
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (legal error is an abuse of discretion)