NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIGOBERTO SANCHEZ-GALVEZ, No. 20-73027 Petitioner, Agency No. A044-568-617 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 Rigoberto Sanchez-Galvez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a denial of a motion to reopen administrative removal * 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. proceedings by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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. Petitioner was admitted to this country as a permanent resident in 1994. In 2014, he was found guilty of attempted possession and delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to prison. He was ordered removed in January 2019, and filed an application for cancellation of removal. His application was denied in March 2019. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Respondent contends that on May 20, 2019, the BIA sent a letter with a briefing schedule for the appeal, with a deadline of June 10, 2019, for both sides’ briefs. It produces a copy of the letter, but no proof of mailing. Counsel for Petitioner contends he did not receive this mailing. However, Counsel acknowledges receiving a mailing sent 10 days later, in which the BIA noted “the briefing due dates for both parties remain unchanged.” The address for counsel on the two letters was the same. 2 In August 2019, the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. Petitioner did not file a timely motion to reopen that case; instead, he filed an appeal in this court. During the course of that appeal, his counsel allegedly learned for the first time that the transcript had been produced and the briefing schedule had been set. Petitioner then requested remand to the BIA. This court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Petitioner had not raised the briefing schedule issue at the administrative level. Petitioner then moved the BIA to reopen the proceeding, well after the allowable period for doing so. Chandra v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals