De Morales v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

De Morales v. Gonzales

146 F. App'x 920

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketNo. 04-74954

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. App'x 920 (De Morales 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

De Morales v. Gonzales, 146 F. App'x 920 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

[921]*921Gloria Veraly Gonzalez De Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen proceedings to apply for adjustment of status as a derivative beneficiary under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NA-CARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Moreover, the petitioner did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling because she did not claim that she was prevented “from filing [the motion to reopen] because of deception, fraud, or error,” see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003), or for circumstances beyond her control, see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

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

**

[921]*921Gloria Veraly Gonzalez De Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen proceedings to apply for adjustment of status as a derivative beneficiary under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NA-CARA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Moreover, the petitioner did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling because she did not claim that she was prevented “from filing [the motion to reopen] because of deception, fraud, or error,” see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003), or for circumstances beyond her control, see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

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)

146 F. App'x 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-morales-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack