NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MITCHEL LUIS ZEGARRA-CARRION, No. 20-71026 AKA Mitchel L. Zegarra, AKA Mitchel Luis Zegarra; ROCIO CARMEN VERA, AKA Agency Nos. A098-410-321 Rocio Carmen Vera Chavez de Zegarra, A086-940-280 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Mitchel Luis Zegarra-Carrion and Rocio Carmen Vera, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. Our jurisdiction is * 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). governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and the denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and terminate as untimely where it was filed more than eight years after the order of removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), and petitioners did not establish that equitable tolling was warranted where their contentions that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over their proceedings are foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”), see Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing, in part, the application of equitable tolling to deadlines on motions to reopen). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that Zagarra- Carrion’s allegedly defective notice of hearing violated his right to due process. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 20-71026 20-71026 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Mitchel Zegarra-Carrion v. Merrick Garland 28 September 2021 Agency Unpublished 81e529d3aef98eaf871fc0741b9b2fc142934c42
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals