Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN JOSE VASQUEZ BARAJAS, No. 19-70459 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-237-231 v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 27, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Juan Jose Vasquez Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and his motion to reconsider and terminate. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and motion to * 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, and the joint motion (Docket Entry No. 50) to submit the case on the briefs is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely and number- barred motion to reopen where Vasquez Barajas failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An applicant must demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.”). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider and terminate where Vasquez Barajas’ contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information). Vasquez Barajas does not challenge the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening or reconsideration, so we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2