Court Opinion

ID: 9407430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 22:00:54.728784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.326827
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             JUL 6 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO SANTIAGO HILARIO,                     No. 21-13
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-711-087
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted June 26, 2023 **

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Alejandro Santiago Hilario, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion

to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in

      *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider

as untimely where it was filed more than four years after the final order of

removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), and petitioner has not established that

equitable tolling of the filing deadline is warranted, see Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d

1225, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2020) (no abuse of discretion in BIA’s denial of

equitable tolling).

      Santiago Hilario’s contention that there was legal error in the BIA’s

determination not to reopen proceedings sua sponte fails, see id. at 1234 (BIA’s

denial of sua sponte relief was not premised on legal or constitutional error),

and we otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the issue, see Bonilla v. Lynch, 840

F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board

decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the

reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         2                                     21-13