Court Opinion

ID: 9376012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 17:00:48.303683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.612449
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2894
                        ___________________________

                           Jaime R. Samol Curruchiche

                             lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                                           v.

            Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

                            lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                                     ____________

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

                          Submitted: February 24, 2023
                             Filed: March 1, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jaime Curruchiche petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on an
allegedly defective Notice to Appear.
       The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Curruchiche’s motion to
reopen as untimely because he admittedly filed it past the deadline, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Mshihiri v. Holder, 753 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and we will not consider his unexhausted equitable-tolling arguments,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Villanueva v. Holder, 615 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2010).
Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion by denying the motion on alternative grounds.
Curruchiche’s jurisdictional arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See
Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); Ali v. Barr, 924
F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). He disagrees with those decisions, but we are bound
by them. See Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc);
see also United States v. Escobar, 970 F.3d 1022, 1027 (8th Cir. 2020). And although
he now argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) is not a claim-processing rule, we do not
consider that argument because he undisputedly advanced the opposite legal theory
in his motion. See Bakor v. Barr, 958 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2020).

      Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-