US v. Bastide-Hernandez, No. 19-30006 (2-2-21) (Boggs w/Bennett; dissent w/M. Smith). This concerns the issue of whether a defective Notice to Appear in a removal case divests an immigration court of jurisdiction. The 9^th holds that under Karingithi and Aguilar Fermin, when a NTA is filed, even if it does not state the date and time for the hearing, jurisdiction is triggered. However, it can create a due process violation. Jurisdiction either exists or it doesn’t; it is not tied directly to the “date and time.”

Dissenting, M. Smith argues that Karingithi requires affirmance of the district court’s dismissal. The government failed to comply with regulatory requirements. The regulatory requirements are a prerequisite to jurisdiction being invoked.

Valiant effort by Paul Shelton of the Fed Defenders of E. Wash (Yakima).

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/02/02/19-30006.pdf