Celis v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Celis v. Gonzales

158 F. App'x 848

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2005

DocketNo. 04-75575; Agency Nos. A75-682-169, A75-682-170

StatusPublished

This text of 158 F. App'x 848 (Celis v. Gonzales) 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

Celis v. Gonzales, 158 F. App'x 848 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Cleofas Vallejo Celis and Maria Marcos Orozco Gonzalez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to reopen was not timely filed, or in rejecting petitioners’ request for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. To invoke equitable tolling, petitioners must demonstrate they acted with due diligence. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Here, petitioners made no showing of diligence, failing to explain why they waited at least eight months after retaining current counsel to file their motion to reopen. Cf. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003) (assuming truth of petitioner’s assertions concerning his former counsel’s deceptive acts, ninety-day limitation period was tolled until petitioner’s meeting with new counsel).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

**

Cleofas Vallejo Celis and Maria Marcos Orozco Gonzalez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to reopen was not timely filed, or in rejecting petitioners’ request for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. To invoke equitable tolling, petitioners must demonstrate they acted with due diligence. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Here, petitioners made no showing of diligence, failing to explain why they waited at least eight months after retaining current counsel to file their motion to reopen. Cf. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003) (assuming truth of petitioner’s assertions concerning his former counsel’s deceptive acts, ninety-day limitation period was tolled until petitioner’s meeting with new counsel).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. App'x 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celis-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack