NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENRIQUE CHRISTIAN TENORIO, No. 19-71321 Petitioner, Agency No. A090-489-725 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District Judge. Enrique Tenorio, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his untimely motion to reopen his 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 Sharon L. Gleason, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and may grant relief only if the BIA’s decision was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)). When, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) as the BIA’s final decision, we consider the IJ’s decision as well. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling for Tenorio’s motion, which was untimely by over nineteen years. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). To show that he was entitled to equitable tolling, Tenorio had to show (1) “a diligent pursuit of [his] rights,” and (2) “that some extraordinary circumstance stood in [his] way and prevented timely filing.” Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1231–32 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). The IJ and BIA could reasonably conclude that Tenorio did not make this showing. “Equitable tolling is available where despite all due diligence, the party invoking the [doctrine] is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim. The party’s ignorance of the necessary information must have been caused by circumstances beyond the party’s control.” Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citations omitted). Even if, as Tenorio claims, our decisions in Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 2 1106 (9th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Aguilera-Rios, 769 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2014), invalidated the original basis for his removal, which can constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, see Lona, 958 F.3d at 1230, Tenorio did not file his motion until approximately four years after we issued those decisions. Tenorio has not explained how circumstances beyond his control prevented him from learning of the claimed basis for his motion to reopen, especially when at no point after the issuance of his removal order did Tenorio consult with …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals