N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LOUIS LYONS, AKA Louis Anthony Ly o ns, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-74025 Age n c y No. A034-090-099
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 14, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R OB RENO, ** Distric t Judge
. In July 2014, Louis Lyo ns file d a m otion to re ope n his 1983 re m o va l proc e e dings to pre se nt a 1989 judic ia l re c om m e n dation a g a inst deporta tion 

# FIL ED
AUG 03 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, 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 Honora

ble Edua rdo C . R obre n o, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva nia , sitting by

de s igna tion.(“ JR

AD” ), 1 whic h Ly ons c onte nds e ntitle s him to re lie f from

de porta tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a) and de ny the pe t ition. The B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ly ons’ s m otion to re ope n. The m otion wa s file d m ore tha n 30 y e ars a fte r the i m m igration judge(“ IJ” ) orde re d Ly ons re m ove d a

nd m ore tha

n 18 y e ars a fte r the d e a dline to file the m otion e xpire d on Se p te m be r 20, 1996. S

e e 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(2) (providing tha t a m otion to re ope n “ m

ust be file d no la

t e r tha n 90 da y s a fte r the date on whic h the fina l a dm i nistra tive de c i sion wa s re n de re d in the proc e e ding sought to be re ope ne d, or on or be fore Se pte m b e r 30, 1996, whic he ve r is la t e r” ). B e twe e n 1983 a

nd 2006, m ore o ve r, Ly ons ille ga lly re e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s on thre e oc c a sions a nd wa s de porte d e a c h tim e . 2 Ly ons a rgue s only

tha t his

1 Form e r 8 U.S.C . § 1251(b)(2) a uthoriz e d a

se nte n c ing c o urt to “ re c om m e nd[] ” tha

t a de fe nda nt a lie n not be de porte d be c a use of a c rim ina l c onvic tion. Se e 8 U.S.C . §1251(b)(2) (1988). Suc h re c om m e ndations we re binding on the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l. Se e id . (providing tha t “ the provisions of . . . this se c tion re spe c ting thede porta

tion of a n a lie n c onvic t e d of a c rim e or c rim e s shall not apply ” whe re the s e nte nc i ng c ourt ha s issue d a JR AD (e m p ha s is a dde d)). C ongre ss re pe a le d § 1251(b)(2) in 1990. Se e Pub. L. No. 101-649, § 505, 104 Sta t. 4978, 5050 (1990).

2 Ly ons’ s a sse rtion tha

t he wa s “ ille g a lly

de porte d” is not a c c urate
. All of Ly ons’ s de porta

tions we re prope r. Ly ons wa s de porte d e a c h tim e be c a use he e nte re d the Unite d State s without a uthoriz ation; none of his subse q ue nt de porta tions involve d his 1983 re m ova l
. 2JR

AD e ntitle s him

to re lie f from

his 1983 de

porta tion; hedoe s not a

rgue tha t it
a pplie s to a

ny of his thre e subse que nt de porta tions. Ly ons a l so fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t he a c t e d with thedue dilige nc e
re quire d for e quita

ble tolling of the

Se pte m be r 1996 de a d line for his m otion to
re ope n . Se e Soc o

p-Gonzale

z v . IN S , 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th C ir. 2001) (e n ba nc ) (re c ogniz ing tha

t e quita ble tolling is a

v a ila b le whe re “ de spite a ll due dilige nc e , the pa rty invoking e q

uita ble tolling is una

ble to obta in vita l inform ation be a ring on the
e xiste nc e of the c la im ” (a lte rations, quota tion m arks, a

nd c ita tion omitte d)); se e also Iturribarria v

. IN S , 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th C ir. 2003) (e q uita ble tolling is
ava ila ble “ whe n a pe t itione r is pre ve nte d from filing be c a use of de c e ption, fra

ud,
or e rror, a s long a s the pe titione r a c ts with due dilige n c e ” ). Eve n a ssum ing tha t Ly ons’ s first m otion to re o p e n, file d in Oc tobe r 2011, wa s im prope rly c onstrue d by the B IA a s a

m otion to re ope n a

diffe re nt proc e e ding, Ly o ns ha s not provide d a
re a s ona ble e xpla nat ion why he wa s una

ble to file his m otion be

fore Oc tobe r 2011. The re is no dispute that Ly ons wa s aw are of the JR AD in 1989. Ye t Ly ons fa ile d to pursue any

re lie f until a

t le a st 2006, a

nd his lim ite d a c tivitie s be t

we e n 2006 a

nd 2011 do not c onstitute due dilige nc e for e sta blishing e quita

ble tolling. Ly ons’ s 1991 re m ova l proc e e dings in Louisia na a lso do not provide an
e xpla nation for Ly ons’ s fa ilure to se e k re lie f be fore 2011. Ly ons a s se rts the IJ
3m isle d him

in 1991 with re ga

rd to his a va ila ble re lie f from

his 1983 re m o va l, but the IJ in 1991 ma de it c le ar that the 1983 re m ova l orde r wa s not be fore him
. 3 Furthe r, the IJ in the1991 proc e e dings ha d no a uthority to re ope n the 1983 proc e e dings a

bse nt a m isc arria g e of justic e , se e Ramire z-J uare z v . IN S , 633 F.2d 174, 175–76 (9th C ir. 1980) (pe r c uriam ), a nd the B IA in the 1991 proc e e dings
c onc lude d tha

t no m i sc arria ge of justic e ha d oc c urre d. Se e He rnande z-Almanza v

. IN S , 547 F.2d 100, 102-03 (9th C ir. 1976) (finding a n a lie n who wa s de porte d ba se d on a

drug c onvic tion tha

t wa s la te r va c ate d wa s not subje c te d to a gross
m isc a rria ge of justic e at the prior proc e e ding), supe rse de d by statute on othe r grounds as state

d in Plane

s v . Holde r , 652 F.3d 991, 995 (9th C ir. 2011). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3 Ly ons a lso a sse rts tha

t the IJ wa s bia se d a g a inst him in the 1991 proc e e dings. In support of this c la im , he file d a m otion for judic ia l notic e , pre s e nting ne w inform ation. W e are lim ite d to the a dm inistra

t ive re c ord, se e Shoafe ra v . IN

S , 228 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th C ir. 2000); there fore , the m otion is DE NIE D . Furthe r, Ly ons a sse rts tha t the IJ a n d the B IA e rre d in the ir de te rm i nations re ga

rding the1991 re e ntry ; howe ve r, those proc e e dings a re not subje c t to thepre se nt m otion to re ope n. W e the re fore de c line to a d dre ss the m . 4