United States v. Juan Bastide-Hernandez
39 F.4th 1187
9th Cir.2022Background
- Juan Carlos Bastide-Hernandez, a Mexican national who first entered the U.S. without inspection in 1996 and has prior criminal convictions, was placed in removal proceedings in April 2006.
- ICE filed Notices to Appear (NTAs) initiating those proceedings; the NTAs did not specify the hearing date or time, and a later notice of hearing was sent but Bastide-Hernandez disputes receiving it.
- An immigration judge conducted a hearing (Bastide-Hernandez attended by videoconference, per his concession) and ordered removal in 2006.
- After returning to the U.S., Bastide-Hernandez was indicted in 2018 for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326; he moved to dismiss, arguing the undated NTA deprived the immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction and thus the removal order was void.
- The district court agreed and dismissed. The Ninth Circuit (en banc) reversed, holding an NTA’s omission of time/date is a nonjurisdictional, claim-processing defect and does not render the removal order void; the case was remanded for further proceedings, including reconsideration of §1326(d) issues in light of Palomar-Santiago.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an NTA lacking date/time deprives the immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Bastide-Hernandez: omission meant the court lacked jurisdiction and the removal was void | U.S.: omission is a procedural/docketing defect; jurisdiction stems from the INA, not the regulation or form | Held: Omission of time/date does not deprive immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction; removal not void ab initio |
| Whether 8 C.F.R. §1003.14(a) ("jurisdiction vests when charging document is filed") is jurisdictional | N/A (overlaps with first issue) | U.S.: §1003.14 is a claim-processing/docketing rule describing commencement of proceedings, not a limit on adjudicatory power | Held: §1003.14(a) is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing (docketing) rule; INA supplies adjudicatory authority |
| Whether collateral attack in §1326 prosecution must satisfy §1326(d) when underlying removal allegedly void | Bastide-Hernandez: if removal was void for lack of jurisdiction, §1326(d) limitations do not apply | U.S.: collateral attacks are governed by §1326(d); defendant must meet its requirements | Held: Court reversed on jurisdictional ground and remanded for district court to reconsider §1326(d) issues in light of United States v. Palomar-Santiago |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (clarifying meanings and consequences of "jurisdiction")
- Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (a notice that omits when and where to appear is not a §1229(a) "notice to appear" for stop-time purposes)
- Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (an NTA must be a single document containing statutorily required information for certain statutory effects)
- United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir.: §1003.14 is an internal docketing rule, not a jurisdictional limit)
- Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.: undated NTA later supplemented by notice of hearing sufficed under regulation for vesting jurisdictional phraseology)
- United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 141 S. Ct. 1615 (Supreme Court decision affecting application of §1326(d) collateral-attack requirements)
- Manrique v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266 (claim-processing rules may be forfeited if not timely raised)