# Fidel Bibiano v. Loretta E. Lynch

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 19, 2016 · 834 F.3d 966

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835604

## Case

- **Full name:** Fidel Ignacio BIBIANO, AKA Bibi Bibiano, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 19, 2016
- **Citations:** 834 F.3d 966; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15260; 2016 WL 4409351
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Callahan
- **Judges:** Pregerson, Tashima, Callahan
- **Nature of suit:** Agency
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835604

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, consistent with nine other federal circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, INA § 242(b)(2), requiring petition for review of orders of removal be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the IJ completed the proceedings, is a non-jurisdict…
- holding that, consistent with nine other federal circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, INA § 242(b)(2
- holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(2)’s venue provision is not jurisdictional, but contrasting the venue statue with other 9 statutes in the INA that use the terms “judicial review” or “jurisdiction”
- holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(2)’s venue provision is not jurisdictional, but contrasting the venue statute with other statutes in the INA that use the terms “judicial review” or “jurisdiction”
- holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2)’s venue provision is not jurisdictional, but contrasting the venue statute with other statutes in the INA that use the terms “judicial review” or “jurisdiction”

## Opinion text

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully with the majority that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(2)’s venue provision is not jurisdictional and that we have subject matter jurisdiction over Bibiano’s claim even though venue is not proper here. I also concur fully with the majority’s decision to remand to the BIA and that our remand does not foreclose the BIA from considering any further issues which the parties may properly raise including which circuit’s law governs this case on remand.
Although I favored transferring the case to the Eleventh Circuit, I accept the remand to the BIA because the government conceded that remand to the BIA was appropriate. I write separately to emphasize my concern that this decision should not be read to encourage forum shopping. Rather, such petitions for review may only be filed, as we held, in “the circuit where the IJ completes proceedings rendering the reinstated removal order final.” Opinion 12-18.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835604. Public record. Not legal advice.