Calderon-Reyes v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Calderon-Reyes v. Holder

594 F. App'x 408

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2015

Docket06-75020

StatusUnpublished

This text of 594 F. App'x 408 (Calderon-Reyes v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calderon-Reyes v. Holder, 594 F. App'x 408 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Calderon-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency used the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying Calderon-Reyes’ motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 10 years after his deportation order became administratively final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(l); Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-57 (BIA 1998) (a motion to reopen an in absentia order to *409 apply for adjustment of status is subject to the 90-day motion to reopen deadline), and he failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadlines, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-80 (9th Cir.2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Contrary to Calderon-Reyes’ contention, he was not entitled to file his motion at any time, where the relevant exception to the filing deadline turns on notice of the deportation hearing, not notice of the deportation order, and Calderon-Reyes does not contend that he lacked notice of his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §- 1252b(c)(3)(B) (1995) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order may be filed “at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with subsection (a)(2) of this section”); id. § 1252b(a)(2) (requiring written notice of “the time and place at which proceedings will be held”).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Calderon-Reyes’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Calderon-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency used the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying Calderon-Reyes’ motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 10 years after his deportation order became administratively final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(l); Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-57 (BIA 1998) (a motion to reopen an in absentia order to *409 apply for adjustment of status is subject to the 90-day motion to reopen deadline), and he failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadlines, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-80 (9th Cir.2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Contrary to Calderon-Reyes’ contention, he was not entitled to file his motion at any time, where the relevant exception to the filing deadline turns on notice of the deportation hearing, not notice of the deportation order, and Calderon-Reyes does not contend that he lacked notice of his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §- 1252b(c)(3)(B) (1995) (a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order may be filed “at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice in accordance with subsection (a)(2) of this section”); id. § 1252b(a)(2) (requiring written notice of “the time and place at which proceedings will be held”).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Calderon-Reyes’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 F. App'x 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-reyes-v-holder-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack