NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORENA SALCEDO ELISONDO, No. 19-71066 Petitioner, Agency No. A075-485-927 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Lorena Salcedo Elisondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salcedo Elisondo’s untimely motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where she failed to demonstrate she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the issues to consider in determining whether petitioner exercised due diligence when petitioner was ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings, diligence requires reasonable efforts to pursue relief). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Salcedo Elisondo’s motion to reopen to apply for removal relief where she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner’s evidence of changed country conditions was not material to his claim and he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 8) is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-71066 19-71066 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Lorena Salcedo Elisondo v. Robert Wilkinson 23 February 2021 Agency Unpublished e5b9fafa8c472c3b63ea05e04f0fd4b395370ddd
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals