Miranda v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Miranda v. Gonzales

173 F. App'x 607

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 2006

DocketNo. 04-73179

StatusPublished

This text of 173 F. App'x 607 (Miranda 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

Miranda v. Gonzales, 173 F. App'x 607 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ernesto Rojas Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas Miranda’s second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), because Rojas Miranda failed to explain why he did not discover the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel or how he was prevented from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim during the five years that elapsed between the time when he retained new counsel and the time he filed his second motion to reopen. See id. at 897 (requiring petitioner to show due diligence to obtain equitable tolling of time and number limits).

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

**

Ernesto Rojas Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas Miranda’s second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), because Rojas Miranda failed to explain why he did not discover the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel or how he was prevented from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim during the five years that elapsed between the time when he retained new counsel and the time he filed his second motion to reopen. See id. at 897 (requiring petitioner to show due diligence to obtain equitable tolling of time and number limits).

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)

173 F. App'x 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack