Court Opinion

ID: 9398232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 17:01:29.211866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.740716
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 30 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLAN RAMON GARCIA,                             No. 21-18
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A070-775-259
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Allan Ramon Garcia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

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

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his

deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

      *
            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).
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review

de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov

v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

      Garcia did not show that notice was improper where he was personally

served with the order to show cause and was given written notice of the

consequences of failing to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1996) (written

notice of the time and place of proceedings and the consequences of failing to

appear required). Thus, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying

Garcia’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it over 24 years after the

filing deadline, and he did not establish that any statutory or regulatory

exceptions apply. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(1) (an order of

deportation entered in absentia may only be rescinded upon a motion to reopen

filed within 180 days of the order if the alien demonstrates exceptional

circumstances); see also Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-57 (BIA

1998) (a motion to reopen seeking only to apply for relief unavailable to the

movant at the time of the hearing is still subject to the regulatory requirements

governing motions to reopen, including the filing deadline).

      Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte is limited to contentions of legal or constitutional error.

See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020).

      Garcia’s claim that the BIA violated due process by streamlining its

                                         2                                      21-18
decision fails because he has not shown error. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,

350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s streamlined decision did not

violate due process).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                       3                                   21-18