Galarza Escobar v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Galarza Escobar v. Holder

375 F. App'x 759

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 2010

Docket07-74877, 07-74879

StatusUnpublished

This text of 375 F. App'x 759 (Galarza Escobar 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

Galarza Escobar v. Holder, 375 F. App'x 759 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions, Leonardo Galarza Escobar and Diana Lorena Ga-larza Escobar, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to reopen because both motions were filed more than three years after the BIA’s February 26, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, and failed to qualify for an exception to the 90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)—(3); see also Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (motion to reopen based on pending 1-130 visa petition may be granted if, inter alia, the motion is timely filed); Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (pending petition for review does not toll the time limit for filing motion to reopen with the BIA).

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 208 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.2000), does not change the result in this case. ■

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITIONS 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 **

In these consolidated petitions, Leonardo Galarza Escobar and Diana Lorena Ga-larza Escobar, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to reopen because both motions were filed more than three years after the BIA’s February 26, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, and failed to qualify for an exception to the 90-day filing limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)—(3); see also Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002) (motion to reopen based on pending 1-130 visa petition may be granted if, inter alia, the motion is timely filed); Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (pending petition for review does not toll the time limit for filing motion to reopen with the BIA).

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 208 F.3d 838 (9th Cir.2000), does not change the result in this case. ■

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITIONS 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)

375 F. App'x 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galarza-escobar-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack