Court Opinion

ID: 9956294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 19:00:34.644041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:48.382349
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN SANCHEZ SIGALA,                          No. 23-498
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A216-187-070
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 28, 2024**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, LEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Adrian Sanchez Sigala (Sanchez Sigala), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

summarily dismissing his untimely administrative appeal. We have jurisdiction

      *
             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).
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

       “We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s summary dismissal of an

appeal. . . .” Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021)

(citation omitted).

       The BIA informed Sanchez Sigala that his appeal was rejected because

“[t]he filing fee paid online [was] invalid as the electronic payment could not be

collected,” and advised Sanchez Sigala that his appeal must be received “within the

prescribed time limits.” Sanchez Sigala’s counsel subsequently filed a motion to

accept a late appeal premised on his assertion that his caseload precluded him from

timely filing the notice of appeal. However, the BIA summarily dismissed

Sanchez Sigala’s appeal as untimely because Sanchez Sigala did not demonstrate

“exceptional circumstances” to justify his untimely appeal.

       The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed Sanchez

Sigala’s untimely appeal. See Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754, 759

(9th Cir. 2023) (explaining that “[t]he BIA abuses its discretion when it acts

arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”) (citation, alteration, and internal

quotation marks omitted). Sanchez Sigala does not assert any colorable error in

the determination that he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify

his untimely appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) (stating that “[a] single

[BIA] member or panel may summarily dismiss any appeal or portion of any

                                           2                                      23-498
appeal in any case in which . . . [t]he appeal is untimely”).1

      PETITION DENIED.2

1
  Sanchez Sigala maintains that the BIA abused its discretion because it summarily
dismissed his appeal “for what should be considered a minor administrative or
clerical error in payment.” However, the BIA did not dismiss the appeal due to
issues involving payment of the fee. Instead, Sanchez Sigala’s counsel
acknowledged that he did not timely file the notice of appeal, and it was on that
basis that the BIA summarily dismissed the appeal.
2
  Sanchez Sigala’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 2, is denied. The temporary stay
of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues.

                                         3                                23-498