Huaman v. Gonzales
This text of 142 F. App'x 286 (Huaman 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Ildefonso Chavez Huaman, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for re[287]*287view of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly determined that Chavez’s motion to reopen was untimely 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, Chavez was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not claim that he 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).
All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
142 F. App'x 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huaman-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.