N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GEOVANNY ESPEJEL HUR TADO, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-70907 Age n c y No. A200-158-327
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 14, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r Ge ova

nny Espe je l Hurta do (“ Hurta do” ) pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his la te -file d m otion to
re ope n . Hurta do m ove d to re ope n his c a se on the ba sis of ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of 

# FIL ED MAY21 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ounse l. He a lso a rgue d tha t the im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) pre siding over his proc e e dings a

buse d he r disc re tion in deny ing his re que st for a c ontinua nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. A B IA de nia l of a m o tion to re ope n is
re vie we d for a b u se of disc re tion a

nd “ is only re ve rse d if it is a rbitra ry , irrationa l, or
c ontra ry to la w.” Pe re z v . Muk ase y , 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). 1. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in holding tha t Hurta do’ s m otion to
re ope n wa s untim e ly . Hurta do did not show tha t he e x e rc ise d

the due dilige nc e ne e de d to toll the

de a dline , a s he pre se nte d no e vide nc e in his mo tion to re ope n de m onstra

ting re a sona

ble ste ps to inve stiga

te his im m igration a

ttorne y ’ s shortc om ings or to pursue re lie f, a nd no suc h e vide nc e is c onta ine d in the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord. Av a

g y an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (de s c ribing fa c tors for a sse ssing duedilige nc e ). Hurta do a lso fa ile d to c om ply with a ny of the proc e d

ura l re quire m e nts of Matte r of Lozada , 19 I. & N. De c . 637 (B IA 1988). S e e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000). W h ile in pra c tic e we have be e n fle xible in re q uiring the Lozada fa c tors, a

nd ha ve dispe nse d with the m

“ whe re c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e wa s obvious a

nd undispute d on the fa c e of the re c ord,” Re y e s v .

2Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th C ir. 2004), there c ord be fore us c o nta ins no

e vide nc e of suc h e rror. 2. Hurta do a lle ge s tha

t the IJ a buse d he r disc re t ion in de ny i ng his re que st for a c ontinua

nc e in his underly ing re m ova l proc e e dings. Hurta do a ppe a le d the IJ’ s de c ision to the

B IA, whic h a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de nia l. B ut he did not pe t ition the Ninth C irc uit for re vie wfrom the B IA’ s orde r. Hurta do now a tte m pts to usethe B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n a s a ve hic le to re -litiga

te this old a

rgum e nt. Abse nt c ha

nge d c irc um sta

nc e s tha t would support a m otion to re ope n, he wa s re quire d to ra ise this a

rgum e nt in a

pe tition from

the B IA’ s de c ision. Thethirty
da y lim ita tion pe riod ha s run on theonly pe tition through whic

h Hurta do c ould have sought re vie w of the IJ’ s c ontinua nc e de nia l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(1). 3. Fina lly , Hurta do a

rgue s tha t the a p pointm e nts of IJs a

nd m e m be rs of the B IA do not sa

tisfy the Appointm e nts C la

use of the U.S. C onstitution, a nd tha t the s e individuals the re fore la c k e d jurisdic tion to order a nd a ffirm his re m ova l. Hurta d o a lso c la i m s tha

t the a bse nc e of a

sta tutory provision perm itting re m ova l of IJs a nd m e m be rs of the B IA sugge sts the y are not suffic i e ntly

subje c t to re m ova l by the Pre side nt. Hurta do did not e xha ust the se argum e nts with the a ge nc y . Howe ve r, 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(D) a llows c ourts of a ppe a ls to he ar c onstitutiona l
c la im s or que stions of la

w ra ise d in a pe tition for re vie w. Se e also Fre y tag v . 3C

omm’r , 501 U.S. 868, 878–79 (1991) (noting tha t “ Appointm e nts C la

u se obje c tions to judic ia l offic e rs” are “ in the c ate gory of nonjurisdic tiona l struc tura l
c onstitutiona

l obje c t i ons,” and a s suc h c an “ be c onside re d on a ppe a l whe the r or not the y we re rule d upon be low” ). The Appointm e nts C la

u se e sta blishe s thre e c ate gorie s of fe de ra l-a ge nc y pe rsonne l: princ ipa l offic e rs, infe rior offic e rs, a nd non-offic e r e m

p loy e e s. U.S. C O N S T . art. II, § 2, c l. 2; se e also Silv e r v . U.S. Postal Serv . , 951 F.2d 1033, 1036–37 (9th C ir. 1991) (disc ussing a ll thre e ). “ [T] h e Pre side nt m ust se e k the
a dvic e and c o nse nt of the Se nate to a ppoint princ ipa l offic e rs.” S tanle y v . Gonzale s , 476 F.3d 653, 659 (9th C ir. 2007). For infe rior offic e rs, C o ngre ss c an dive rge from this de fa

ult a nd by la w ve st a ppointm e nt in thePre side nt a lone , c ourts, or a ge nc y

he a ds. Id. “ Individua ls who a re m e re ly e m ploy e e s of the Unite d Stat e s gove rnm e nt do not im plic ate the Appointm e nts C la use .” Silv e r , 951 F.2d a

t 1037. IJs a

n d m e m be rs of the B IA are infe rior offic e rs whose a ppointm e nts do not offe nd the C onstitution. The y are offic e rs rathe r tha

n m e re e m

ploy e e s be c a

use the y are a djudic ative offic ia ls who e xe rc i se signific ant a uthority
. Se eLuc ia v
. SEC, 138 S. C t. 2044, 2051–55 (2018) (distinguishing offic e rs from non-offic e rs); Fre y tag , 501 U.S. a

t 881–82 (sa

m e ). Howe v e r, the y

are infe rior rathe r tha

n
4princ ipa l offic e rs be c a u se the y are subje c t to both judic i a l a nd m ana ge ria l supe rvision. Se e Edmond v . Unite d State s , 520 U.S. 651, 662–66 (1997) (distinguishing princ ipa l offic e rs from infe rior offic e rs). The i r a ppointm e nts do not viola te the Appointm e nts C la

use be c a u se IJs a nd B IA m e m

be rs a re both
a ppointe d by

the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l through a

uthority grante d by

C o ngre ss. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(b)(4) (re quiring a ppointm e nt of IJs by

the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l); 8 U.S.C . § 1103(g)(2) (gra

nting theAttorne y

Ge ne ra l powe r to “ e sta

blish suc h
re gula tions” and “ re vie w . . . a d m inistra tive de te rm inations in im

m i gration proc e e dings” ); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(a)(1) (providing tha t B IA “ m e m

be rs sha ll be
attorne y s a

p pointe d by

the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l to a c t a s the Attorne y Ge ne ra l’ s de le gate s in thec a se s tha

t c om e be fore the m ” ). Nor is thela c k of a sta

tutory sc h e m e re ga

rding there m o va l of B IA m e m be rs and IJs unc onstitutiona

l. “ [A] s a m atte r of sta

tutory inte rpre tation, . . . a

b se nt a

‘ s pe c ific provision to the

c ontra ry , the powe r of re m ova l from offic e is inc ide nt to the p owe r of a

ppointm e nt.’ ” C

arluc c i v . Doe , 488 U.S. 93, 95 (1988) (quoting K e im v . Unite d State

s , 177 U.S. 290, 293 (1900)). Hurta do ide ntifie s no re stric tion on the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l’ s a

bility to re m ove the IJs a

n d B IA m e m

be rs tha t it is
e m powe re d to a

ppoint. Ac c ordingly , we do not a gre e with Hurta do’ s c onte ntion that IJs a nd B IA m e m

be rs a re not suffic ie ntly

re m o va ble
. 5The pe tition is DE NIE D
.

6