Case ID: f-appx_202/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bertila PEDROZA-PINEDA; Lilian Galicia-Pedroza; and Brenda Galicia-Pedroza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73213.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 27, 2006.
    Patricia Vargas, Esq., Vargas & Associates, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Francesco Isgro, Attorney, Emily A. Rad-ford, Esq., Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: ALARCON, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bertila Pedroza-Pineda (“Bertila”) and her daughters, Lilian Galieia-Pedroza (“Lilian”) and Brenda Galieia-Pedroza (“Brenda”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Bertila and Lilian’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings to permit them to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review in part, and grant in part and remand.

To be timely, Bertila and Lilian’s motion to reopen had to be filed no later than September 30, 1996. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (a “motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later.”). They filed their motion on December 3, 2002. The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that their motion was untimely. See Singh, 295 F.3d at 1039 (stating that this court will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law).

Brenda did not move to reopen and the IJ’s order did not reference Brenda. We remand so that the BIA may delete the reference to Brenda from its order.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED with respect to petitioners Bertila and Lilian; GRANTED with respect to petitioner Brenda, and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.