Court Opinion

ID: 9363892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 21:00:35.912108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.703214
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERARDO GARCIA-ORTIZ,                            No.   19-72388

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A034-614-679

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 11, 2023**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
                                                                          Page 2 of 2

      Gerardo Garcia-Ortiz petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) order denying as untimely his motion to reconsider and remand

proceedings. We deny the petition.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that, whether considered a

motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, Garcia-Ortiz’s motion was untimely as

he filed it nearly seven years after the underlying BIA decision and failed to

demonstrate that an applicable exception applied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B)

(30-day deadline for motions to reconsider); § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day deadline

for motions to reopen).

      Garcia-Ortiz argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v.

Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), warrants equitable tolling. But that case has no

application here. A Notice to Appear need not contain the date, place, and time of

the hearing to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court. See United States v.

Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc); Aguilar

Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2020). Nor does the stop-time rule at

issue in Pereira have any bearing on this case for it is undisputed that Garcia-Ortiz

was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.