Court Opinion

ID: 9384585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 14:00:28.979018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.517704
License: Public Domain

20-2570
     Castro-Lopez v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                            McCarthy, IJ
                                                                           A202 027 136

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                     SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 4th day of April, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            REENA RAGGI,
 9            WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
10            EUNICE C. LEE,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   SONIA LILIAN CASTRO-LOPEZ,
15                 Petitioner,
16
17                     v.                                        20-2570
18                                                               NAC
19
20   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22                 Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25
26   FOR PETITIONER:                       Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead,
27                                         NY.
28
 1   FOR RESPONDENT:              Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
 2                                Attorney General; Brianne Whelan
 3                                Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel;
 4                                Andrea N. Gevas, Trial Attorney,
 5                                Office of Immigration Litigation,
 6                                United States Department of
 7                                Justice, Washington, DC.
 8
 9       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

10   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

11   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

12   is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in

13   part.

14       Petitioner    Sonia   Lilian       Castro-Lopez,   a   native   and

15   citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a July 28, 2020 decision

16   of the BIA affirming an August 20, 2019 decision of an

17   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her motion for the IJ to

18   reissue its April 30, 2018 removal order with a current date

19   so that she could timely appeal it to the BIA.              See In re

20   Sonia Lilian Castro-Lopez, No. A202 027 136 (B.I.A. July 28,

21   2020), aff’g No. A202 027 136 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 20,

22   2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying

23   facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

24       We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions

25   denying Castro-Lopez’s motion to reissue.          See Wangchuck v.

26   Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).           “A

                                        2
 1   motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen,” which we

 2   review for abuse of discretion. Ping Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,

 3   502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007).

 4       It is undisputed that Castro-Lopez’s motion to reissue

 5   was untimely because she filed it in May 2019 — more than one

 6   year after the IJ issued its April 2018 removal order.    See

 7   8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (providing 90-day deadline for

 8   motions to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (same); see also

9    Ping Chen, 502 F.3d at 75.     It is further undisputed that

10   Castro-Lopez received proper notice of the April 2018 removal

11   order.

12       Castro-Lopez nevertheless urges that her untimely filing

13   be excused because her attorney (who continues to represent

14   her here) misplaced her case file.      This argument really

15   encompasses two:   (1) that the agency erred in declining to

16   exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen, and (2) that the

17   agency erred by not equitably tolling the 90-day deadline

18   based on counsel’s mistake.   See Li Chen v. Garland, 43 F.4th

19   244, 247 (2d Cir. 2022) (“Apart from § 1229a, the BIA also

20   has the authority to reopen a case sua sponte.”); Iavorski v.

21   U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 134–35 (2d Cir. 2000) (allowing agency

                                   3
 1   to toll time based on ineffective assistance of counsel).

 2   Neither argument has merit.

 3          To the extent that Castro-Lopez challenges the agency’s

 4   decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen,

 5   we     lack   jurisdiction    to    consider   that   “entirely

 6   discretionary” decision.     Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518

 7   (2d Cir. 2006); see also Li Chen, 43 F.4th at 251–53.*

 8          As for Castro-Lopez’s appeal to equity based on counsel’s

 9   mistake, this court has held that the time for filing a motion

10   to reopen “may be equitably tolled to accommodate claims of

11   ineffective assistance of counsel.”      Iavorski, 232 F.3d at

12   134.     But Castro-Lopez explicitly states that she did not

13   allege ineffective assistance of counsel before the agency

14   and does not raise such a claim here.      Castro-Lopez has not

15   identified any other cognizable basis for equitable tolling

16   of the 90-day deadline for her motion.     See Yueqing Zhang v.

17   Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005)

18   (deeming petitioner to have abandoned a claim not raised in

19   his brief).

     * Whatever jurisdiction we might have to consider an agency
     decision   based   on  a  “misperce[ption   of]  the   legal
     background,” Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir.
     2009), that exception does not apply on the record here.

                                     4
1       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2   DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part.

3   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays

4   VACATED.

5                               FOR THE COURT:
6                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
7                               Clerk of Court

                                  5