NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENRIQUE ANTIMO JASSO, No. 20-71240 Petitioner, Agency No. A070 179 280 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District Judge. Petitioner Enrique Antimo Jasso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a denial of a motion to reopen administrative removal proceedings by * 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 Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Petitioner seeks to challenge his 1994 in absentia removal order in a motion to reopen. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, i.e., whether it was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). “We review the [BIA’s] legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence[.]” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part. 1. An in absentia deportation order can be revoked “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the [deportation order] if the alien demonstrates that failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A).1 Petitioner’s motion was clearly untimely, as it was filed in 2019, roughly 25 years after his deportation order. Thus, to qualify for reopening, Petitioner must show that there were exceptional circumstances and that equitable tolling excuses his untimeliness. See Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). 1 Petitioner’s order to show cause was issued before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) became effective. Therefore, pre-IIRIRA rules regarding motions to reopen apply here. Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 Petitioner argues that exceptional circumstances are present here because his car was stolen in the days prior to his July 21, 1994, removal hearing, and his notice to appear was in the car. Petitioner remembered the day the hearing was to take place, but according to Petitioner, he misremembered the time of the hearing and arrived three-and-a-half hours late. Even assuming Petitioner’s car was stolen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining he had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to excuse his untimely motion. The theft of the car is only relevant here …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals