NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWIN ORLANDO CALDERON- No. 19-72874 FAJARDO, Agency No. A077-242-580 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 3, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: SILER,*** BERZON, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Memorandum joined by Judge LEE and Judge SILER; Dissent by Judge BERZON Edwin Calderon-Fajardo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration * 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Judge’s denial of reopening. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Calderon-Fajardo unlawfully entered the United States in May 1998. Removal proceedings commenced a month later, and he was granted the right to voluntarily depart by March 2000. Calderon-Fajardo, however, apparently did not depart and remained in the United States. In March 2018, after he was detained by immigration authorities, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings from two decades ago. The motion consisted of a single paragraph without any accompanying documents or evidence. That motion was denied by the Immigration Judge and then affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 2. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See De Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 2004). Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3), a motion to reopen must be, inter alia: (i) “supported by affidavits and other evidentiary material”; and (ii) “accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documents.” Calderon-Fajardo’s one- paragraph motion filed in March 2018 was neither supported by evidentiary material nor accompanied by an application for relief. The agency thus acted within its discretion in denying reopening because he failed to satisfy procedural requirements prescribed by regulation. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (failure to “satisfy the procedural requirements” precludes relief); 2 Khourassany v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (procedural rules for reopening — with the limited exception of time and numerical limitations and prior unavailability of evidence — apply in the context of a claim under the Convention Against Torture). 3. Calderon-Fajardo also raises due process and equal protection challenges to the denial of reopening, which we review de novo. Ram v. I.N.S., 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). These arguments lack merit. First, the Immigration Court Practice Manual — consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) — requires that if a motion to reopen “is based on eligibility for relief, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals