Court Opinion

ID: 9369766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 18:00:35.606945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.967903
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 9 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLINDA CONTRERAS DE RAMOS,                     No.   19-71670

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A092-923-376

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted February 6, 2023**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: BOGGS,*** IKUTA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Carlinda Contreras De Ramos (“Contreras”), a native and citizen of

Honduras, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

      *
             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).
      ***
            The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
(“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

abuse of discretion. Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the

petition.

      In 2018, Contreras filed a motion to reopen, alleging that her prior counsel

provided ineffective assistance during removal proceedings more than a decade

earlier. The BIA denied the motion as untimely. The BIA also held, in the alternative,

that the BIA did not lack jurisdiction based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105

(2018), an issue Contreras did not raise.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Contreras’s motion as

untimely. Contreras waited over twelve years to pursue relief, yet she does not claim,

let alone show, that she acted with the diligence required to equitably toll the 90-day

filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575,

583–84 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that the petitioner failed to “demonstrate the

diligence necessary for equitable tolling” when he waited six years to take any action

after the deportation order and gave “no explanation for waiting that long”).

      Contreras also does not challenge the BIA’s holding that she failed to show

diligence and therefore she has forfeited the argument. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS,

94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). Instead, she argues the BIA “acted arbitrarily

and irrationally” and violated her “right to due process” when it addressed a

                                            2
jurisdictional issue that Contreras did not raise and “failed to properly assess and

respond to the arguments” that she did raise. This argument fails. The BIA correctly

denied Contreras’s motion as untimely, and that issue is dispositive. Lata v. I.N.S.,

204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring that a petitioner must show error and

prejudice to “prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings”); see

also Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the BIA

need not reach issues “unnecessary to the results” after it decides a dispositive

threshold issue (citation omitted)).

      The petition is DENIED.

                                         3