NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL QUINTERO DIAZ; YESENIA No. 18-72468 QUINTERO FIGUEROA, Agency Nos. A070-195-570 Petitioners, A070-195-571 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 13, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District Judge. Daniel Quintero Diaz and Yesenia Quintero Figueroa (the “Quinteros” or * 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 Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. “Petitioners”) petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) decision, specifically its denial of their second motion to reopen immigration proceedings. On June 8, 2004, an immigration judge found the Quinteros inadmissible and granted them voluntary departure or, in the alternative, ordered them removed (the “2004 Order”). On appeal, the Board affirmed, closing their proceedings. The Quinteros never left the United States and twice moved to reopen their proceedings. They first moved to reopen on April 25, 2007, and the Board denied the motion.1 They next moved to reopen more than a decade later, on March 12, 2018.2 The Board denied this motion as well, reasoning that the second motion was number- and time-barred, and that no exception applied to permit reopening under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The Board then declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. The Quinteros now petition for judicial review of the Board’s denial of their second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, see Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581, 588 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition. 1 While this motion was styled as a “MOTION TO REINSTATE,” the Board construes a motion according to its underlying purpose. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 792–93 (9th Cir. 2005). All parties now agree this April 25, 2007 motion was a motion to reopen. 2 Petitioners at times state conflicting dates for these decisions. These inconsistencies do not alter the outcome of this disposition. 2 I. A party may file only one motion to reopen deportation proceedings and it must do so within 90 days of the final administrative decision unless an exception applies. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 582; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). As noted, the motion below was not Petitioners’ first motion to reopen and was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative decision in their proceedings, as Petitioners concede. Further, the Quinteros did not argue before the Board that an exception applies.3 As a result, we conclude the Board’s decision to deny the petition on these grounds was not “arbitrary, irrational, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals