N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOR GE GUER

R A-LEYVA, AKA Jorge C . Gue rra , Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-70504 Age n c y No. A074-059-323
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

June 13, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a n d WU, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED JUN 15 2022 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Ge orge H. W

u, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Jorge Gue rra -Le yva , a native of C u

ba , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) dism issa l of his a ppe a l from the de nia l of his
m otion to re o pe n h i s re m ova l proc e e dings. W e re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of a
m otion to re o pe n for a

buse of disc re tion. Agonafe r v . Se ssions , 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th C ir. 2017). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e dism iss in pa rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re v ie w.

I Gue rra -Le yv a ’ s m otion to re ope n wa s untim e ly . M o tions to re ope n m ust be file d within nine t

y da y s of a fina l re m ova l orde r. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2); se e id. § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii) (providing tha t m otions to re ope n ba se d on c ha nge d c o untry
c onditions may

be file d at a

ny tim e ). Gue rra -Le yv a ’ s m o tion wa s file d a bout
e ighte e n y e ars a fte r he wa s orde re d re m ove d. The B IA prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t his untim e l ine ss should not be e xc use d. A The B IA a c t e d within its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha

t Gue rra -Le yva

fa ile d to show c ha

nge d c ountry

c o nditions mate ria l to his c la im s for re lie f. Gue rra -Le yva produc e d no e vide nc e s ugge sting tha t the c onditions re le va

nt to his c la im s of future pe rse c ut ion a

nd torture we re diffe re nt from those tha t e xiste d at the tim e of his 1999 re m ova l he aring. His own a ffidav i t, subm itte d with his motion, de sc ribe s
2the p re se n t c o nditions in Cu ba a s a c ontinua tion of pa st c onditions, noting tha t the gove rnm e nt “ c ontinue

s to be a strong dic tatorship” (e m

pha sis a dde d). Furthe r, the shifts in diplom

a tic re lations tha

t Gue rra -Le yva

c l a im s will m a

ke it m ore like ly that he will be re m ove d to C uba are not m ate ria l to his c la im s for re lie f. The fa c t of re m ova l is a s sum e d

whe n e va luating a

pe titione r’ s c a se for a sy lum and re late d
re lie f. Thus, thea c tua l proba bility of re m ova l ha s no be aring on thestre ngth of a
c la im
. Se e

, e .g. , Al-Harbi v . IN

S , 242 F.3d 882, 890 (9th C ir. 2001) (re q uiring

“ proof of a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution if re turne d to Iraq ” to de m onstra

te a sy l um e ligibility (e m

pha sis a d de d)). B The B IA a lso a c te d within its disc re tion in de c lining to e quita b ly toll the de a dline for Gue rra -Le yva ’ s m otion to re ope n . Gue rra -Le y v a ’ s prim ary

argum e nt for e q uita ble tolling is tha

t at the tim e of his de porta tion he aring in 1999, he

wa s
e ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus unde r the C uba

n Adjustm e nt Ac t (“ C A A” ), but
wa s ne ve r inform e d of this possibility and wa s inste a d told tha

t he c ould re m a in in the U nite d State s inde finite ly if he did not c onte st his re m ova l proc e e dings. 1 This

1 To the e xte n t Gue rra -Le yv a argue d be low for e quita

ble tolling on the

ba s is of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, he ha s wa ive d this a rgum e nt in his pe tition for re vie w. 3argum e nt fa ils be c a use the B IA c orre c tly

c onc l ude d tha

t Gue rra -Le y

va wa s not, in fa c t , e ligible for a djustm e nt unde r the C AA at the tim e of his he aring. Unde r the C AA, C uba

n re fuge e s m ay a

pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus on a n
e xpe dite d tim e line , but the y m ust ne v e rthe le ss be a dm issibleunde r fe d e ra l im m igration la

w. Se e C u

b an Adjustm e nt Ac t, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Sta t . 1161 (providing tha

t “ the sta tus of a ny a lie n who is a

nat ive or c itiz e n of C uba . . . m ay be a d juste d” if, a

m ong othe r re quire m e nts, the y are “ a dm issibleto the Unite d Stat e s” ). Gue rra -Le yva argue s he wa s a dm issible , a s his c ontrolle d substa nc e s
c onvic tion unde r Ne v. R e v . Stat. § 453.338 c ould not disqua lify him pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II)— e ve n unde r the m odifie d-c ate goric a l
a pproa c h

— be c a u s e the judgm e nt of c onvic t ion wa s a m biguous a s to the substa

nc e he wa s c onvic te d of posse s sing. Gue rra -Le yv a ’ s a

rgum e n t is fore c lose d by

the Supre m e C ourt’ s re c e nt de c ision in Pe re i da v . W

i l k inson , 141 S. C t. 754 (2021), a nd our subse que nt de c ision in Marine lare na v . Garland , 6 F.4th 975 (9th C ir. 2021). In Pe re ida , the C ourt he ld tha

t a n a pplic an t c onvic te d unde r a

divisible sta te sta tute tha t inc lude s
som e disqua lify i ng offe nse s re ta ins the burde n of showing tha t his c onvic tion wa s not disqualify ing. Se e 141 S. C t. at 763 & n.4. Apply ing tha t holding, we h e ld that , whe n fa c e d with suc h a situa tion, a pe titione r c a

nnot suc c e e d by

pointing to
4the a

m biguity of the re c ord; sinc e the pe titione r re t a ins the burde n, “ am biguity is insuffic ie nt.” Marine lare na , 6 F.4th a t 978. Ac c ordingly , be c a use Gue rra -Le yva
wa s c onvic te d unde r a

sta tute divisible

by substa nc e , he c annot pre v a il by

c la im ing that the re c ord of his c onvic tion wa s a m b iguous a s to the ty

pe of substa

n c e he
a c tua lly posse sse d. II W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Gue rra -Le yv a ’ s c l a im tha t the a ge nc y

e rre d in de ny ing his re que st for sua sponte re ope ning. Se e Ek imian v . IN

S , 303 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding tha t c ourts ge ne ra lly

la c k jurisdic tion ove r
a ge nc y de c isions not to sua sponte re ope n proc e e dings). B e c a

use the B IA’ s de c ision wa s not “ obvious[ly ] ” grounde d in a m i sta k e n be lie f that it la c ke d

le ga l
a uthority , the e xc e ption to this ge ne ra l rule a

pplie d in B onilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th C ir. 2016), doe s not a p ply he re . Lona v . Barr , 958 F.3d 1225, 1234 (9th C ir. 2020).

PE T IT I O N DISM ISSE D IN PART ; DE NIE D IN PART

5