Court Opinion

ID: 9901962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:00:51.35361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.170279
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS HUMBERTO DE PAZ                          No. 22-1774
FRANCO,                                         Agency No.
                                                A071-585-624
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Humberto De Paz Franco, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for

review.

         Because De Paz Franco does not challenge the agency’s determination that

he was not prima facie eligible for relief, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez

v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

         De Paz Franco’s contention that equitable tolling excuses his untimely

motion to reopen is not properly before the court because he failed to raise it in his

motion to reopen before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of

administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.

411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing

rule).

         The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

         PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                  22-1774