Carrillo-Velasquez v. Garland

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR CARRILLO-VELASQUEZ, No. 23-158 Agency No.

Petitioner, A205-528-280 v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 11, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Carrillo-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s

*

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).

denial of a motion to reopen. Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

We deny the petition because the BIA did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Carrillo-Velasquez’s motion to reopen was untimely. A motion to reopen must be filed “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Carrillo-Velasquez filed his motion in July 2022, nearly two years after the agency entered the final administrative order of removal in November 2020. See Vega v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n order of removal entered upon a decision by the BIA on the merits of the alien’s case is a ‘final administrative order of removal.’” (quoting § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i))). Carrillo-Velasquez waived any argument that the BIA should have excused his motion’s untimeliness by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION DENIED.

2 23-158