Alejandro Robles Quecano v. US Attorney General

Eleventh Circuit

Alejandro Robles Quecano v. US Attorney General

239 F. App'x 499

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2007

Docket06-15744

StatusUnpublished

This text of 239 F. App'x 499 (Alejandro Robles Quecano v. US Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alejandro Robles Quecano v. US Attorney General, 239 F. App'x 499 (11th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Robles Quecano, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions this Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of his motion to reopen his case. Robles contends his marriage to a United States citizen is new, material, and previously unavailable evidence that could not have been presented at the previous hearing and the BIA should reopen his proceedings so that he can apply for a form of relief previously unavailable to him. We deny his petition.

An alien may file one motion to reopen, which “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),(B). A motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2). We have held that the deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Abdi v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir.2005). The 90-day filing deadline is tolled for an alien that files a motion to reopen predicated upon “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).

The BIA’s denial of Robles’ motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. Abdi, 430 F.3d at 1149 (stating the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). The BIA issued a final judgment on Robles’ asylum appeal on November 30, 2005. The 90-day limitation period ended on February 28, 2006. Robles filed his motion to reopen on September 1, 2006, which was well beyond the limitation period. Since Robles’ motion to reopen was not based upon changed circumstances in Colombia that could not have been presented *501 at his previous hearing, the 90-day deadline was mandatory and jurisdictional.

PETITION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Robles Quecano, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions this Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of his motion to reopen his case. Robles contends his marriage to a United States citizen is new, material, and previously unavailable evidence that could not have been presented at the previous hearing and the BIA should reopen his proceedings so that he can apply for a form of relief previously unavailable to him. We deny his petition.

An alien may file one motion to reopen, which “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),(B). A motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2). We have held that the deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Abdi v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir.2005). The 90-day filing deadline is tolled for an alien that files a motion to reopen predicated upon “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).

The BIA’s denial of Robles’ motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. Abdi, 430 F.3d at 1149 (stating the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). The BIA issued a final judgment on Robles’ asylum appeal on November 30, 2005. The 90-day limitation period ended on February 28, 2006. Robles filed his motion to reopen on September 1, 2006, which was well beyond the limitation period. Since Robles’ motion to reopen was not based upon changed circumstances in Colombia that could not have been presented *501 at his previous hearing, the 90-day deadline was mandatory and jurisdictional.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 F. App'x 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alejandro-robles-quecano-v-us-attorney-general-ca11-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack