N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AB EL AM ILC AR

OR DONEZ M ENDOZA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72722 Age n c y No. A073-916-751
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 August 9, 2022 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, M c KEOW N, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Abe l Am ilc ar Ordone z M e ndoz a pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r a dopting the de c ision of a

n Im m igration Judge (“ IJ” ) de ny ing his motion to re ope n a n in abse ntia orde r of de porta tion. W e 

# F IL ED AUG 11 2022 M OLLY C. 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 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).have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition. B e c a

u se the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . I The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing the m otion to re ope n. The B IA re a sona

bly c o nc l ude d tha

t, e ve n if e q

uita ble tolling a

pplie d, Ordone z M e n doz a ’ s m otion to re o p e n wa s not tim e ly file d be c a

use he wa ite d, at le a st, te n y e ars a fte r disc ove ring tha t c ounse l ha d de c e ive d

him to file it. Se e Bonilla v

. Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 583 (9th C ir. 2016) (wa iting six y e a rs be fore se e king furthe r le ga l a d vic e be c a use a prior a ttorne y ha d give n unspe c ific le ga l a dvic e to wa it “ a fe w y e ars” be fore se e king im m igration re lie f did not show the dilige n c e ne c e ssa

ry for e q uita ble tolling). C ontra ry to Ordone z M e ndoz a ’ s a s se rtion, the B IA did not im pe rm issibly
re je c t his de c la

ration a s nonc re dible . The B IA re lie d on the fa c ts in Ordone z M e n doz a ’ s de c la

ration whe n it c onc lude d tha t he wa s on notic e of c ounse l’ s de c e ption in 2004 whe

n he wa s de porte d twic e , or at the late st, 2009 when he disc ove re d tha

t c ounse l ha d c lose d his la wpra c tic e without c onta c ting him to
re turn his file
. The se fa c ts form e d the ba s is for the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Ordone z M e n doz a wa s not diligent.

2Nor did the B IA e rr in fa iling to spe c ific a lly disc uss the role tha

t Ordone z M e n doz a ’ s room

m ate pla y e d in them atte r. The B IA is not re q u ire d to disc uss
e ve ry fa c t submitte d

in a de c la ration. Rathe r, it m

ust “ indic at e with spe c ific ity tha t it he ard and c onside re d pe titione r’ s c la im s.” Marav illa Marav illa v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 855, 858 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ) (c ita t ion om itte d). B e c a

use the B IA de te rm i ne d tha

t Ordone z M e n d oz a ’ s atte m pts to re m e dy the situa

tion a fte r 2009
we re la rge ly ina d e quate , it wa s not ne c e ssa ry for the B IA to disc uss Ordone z M e n doz a ’ s atte m

pts to find his im

m igration re c ords prior to hiring ne w c ounse l in 2018. II W e de c line to a ddre ss Ordone z M e n doz a ’ s c onte n tion tha t he suffe re d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, be c a

use the B IA did not re

je c t it. Rathe r, the B IA found tha t a ny c la im of ine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e did not e quita

bly toll the180-da

y tim e pe riod unde r 8 C
. F.R
. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1) to file a m otion to re ope n be c a use Ordone z M e n d oz a did not de m onstra t e due dilige nc e . Se eRe c inos de Le on v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th C ir. 2005) (noting tha t a ppe a ls pa ne l s

“ m ay a ffirm the [B IA] only

on grounds se t forth in theopinion under re vie w” ) (c ita tion omitte d). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
3