NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER ERNESTO RAYMUNDO- No. 21-328 LIMA, Agency No. A077-260-082 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 08, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, Circuit Judges and CARDONE***, District Judge. Concurrence by Judge R. NELSON. Walter Ernesto Raymundo-Lima, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by an Immigration Judge, which denied his * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. second motion to reopen or reconsider his reasonable fear proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, except where otherwise noted below. Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2018); Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1018, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. 1. Petitioner first argues that the IJ erred by not considering his argument to equitably toll the deadline for filing his motion. We review this decision for abuse of discretion. Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2021). The IJ acknowledged that Petitioner raised an equitable tolling argument. But by failing to explicitly consider and decide whether Petitioner was entitled to tolling, the IJ abused its discretion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The error, however, was harmless. Equitable tolling may be warranted “based on a change in the law that invalidates the original basis for removal.” Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1230 (9th Cir. 2020). Petitioner argued that Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), invalidated the basis for his underlying removal order because he was never notified of his removal hearing’s time and place, either in his initial Notice to Appear or in a later notice. But Petitioner was not entitled to notice of the time and place of his removal hearing because he never provided his address to the government. See Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder, 768 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir. 2014); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B). Assuming Karingithi represented a change in the law, 2 it was not “a change in the law that invalidate[d] the original basis for [Petitioner’s] removal,” which would be required to justify equitable tolling. See Lona, 958 F.3d at 1230. Because Petitioner’s equitable tolling argument lacked merit, he was not prejudiced by the IJ’s failure to explicitly consider it. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the Petition is denied as to the request for equitable tolling. See Lona, 958 F.3d at 1232. 2. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals