Frank Miguel v. Merrick Garland, 18-72280

Petitioner Frank Miguel, a Mexican national, faced removal and sought cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; he waived review of his CAT claim by not raising it on appeal.
The Notice to Appear omitted the filing address; Miguel argued the omission deprived the IJ of jurisdiction.
At the merits hearing, Miguel’s retained counsel abandoned the cancellation application; the IJ (and BIA) deemed the application waived.
Miguel sought a continuance/remand and asserted ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of his statutory right to counsel when counsel was absent; the IJ denied the continuance and the BIA denied the remand.
The BIA found Miguel failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution and that internal relocation in Mexico was viable; the BIA also affirmed denial of voluntary departure as discretionary and unreviewable absent a serious constitutional claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction from NTA omitting address	NTA omission meant IJ lacked jurisdiction	Filing the NTA vests jurisdiction with the immigration court	Jurisdiction existed; claim foreclosed by precedent
Waiver of cancellation & ineffective assistance	Counsel abandoned the cancellation application; counsel was ineffective	BIA: application abandoned through counsel; no abuse of discretion in deeming waived	Waiver affirmed; remanded for BIA to address ineffective-assistance claim
Withholding of removal / well-founded fear & internal relocation	Miguel fears future persecution on protected ground	Record lacked credible, direct, specific evidence; internal relocation possible	Substantial evidence supports denial of withholding; relocation finding sustained
Denial of continuance & right to counsel	Hearing should have been continued because retained counsel absent; statutory right violated	IJ considered factors, took reasonable steps, prior continuances counted against Miguel	IJ did not abuse discretion; denial of continuance and right-to-counsel claim rejected
Motion to remand & voluntary departure	Requested remand and voluntary departure	Motion to remand duplicated merits; voluntary departure is discretionary and no serious constitutional issue raised	Motion to remand denied; voluntary-departure denial not reviewable here

United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 3 F.4th 1193 (9th Cir.) (holding that filing an NTA vests jurisdiction in the immigration court)
Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2013) (abandonment/waiver doctrine and abuse-of-discretion review)
Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand where BIA did not address ineffective-assistance claim)
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2019) (substantial-evidence standard for withholding of removal)
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for demonstrating likelihood of persecution)
Mu v. Barr, 936 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2019) (factors for continuance requests)
Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2019) (procedures protecting statutory right to counsel)
Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2015) (denial of remand standard)
Rojas v. Holder, 704 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2012) (review limits for discretionary voluntary departure)
Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2013) (jurisdictional limits when no serious constitutional issue raised)