Ramirez-Puentes v. Bondi
22-2019
9th Cir.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Jorge Ramirez-Puentes, a Mexican national, challenged his removal proceedings based on a defect in his Notice to Appear (NTA), which lacked a required date and time.
- Despite the defective NTA, Ramirez attended all scheduled hearings with counsel and sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
- At his merits hearing, Ramirez moved to terminate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction due to the NTA defect; both the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected this argument and denied relief, issuing a final order of removal.
- Ramirez later filed a motion to reopen, citing changes in the law (Matter of Fernandes), which characterized NTA requirements as a mandatory, but non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule.
- The BIA denied the motion to reopen as untimely and not implicating jurisdiction, and Ramirez petitioned for review to the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdictional Defect | Defective NTA deprived court of jurisdiction. | Defect does not impact court's jurisdiction. | No jurisdictional defect; established law. |
| Claim-Processing Rule Violation | Untimely objection should still permit reopening due to Fernandes. | Objection raised after close of pleadings was untimely under Fernandes. | Objection untimely; Fernandes does not assist Ramirez. |
| Equivalence of Jurisdictional & Claim-Processing Objection | Previous jurisdictional objection should count as claim-processing objection. | Only a direct, timely claim-processing objection counts. | Objection forfeited; not functionally equivalent. |
| Retroactive Application of Fernandes | Applying Fernandes retroactively is improper. | Argument not raised to BIA; should not be considered. | Argument unexhausted, not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (lack of hearing information in an NTA does not deprive immigration court of jurisdiction)
- United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (failure of NTA to include time/date does not remove jurisdiction)
- Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024) (in absentia removal order valid despite NTA defect)