Rafael Garcia-Rojas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

425 F. App'x 573
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 2011
Docket09-72070
StatusUnpublished

This text of 425 F. App'x 573 (Rafael Garcia-Rojas v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Rafael Garcia-Rojas v. Eric Holder, Jr., 425 F. App'x 573 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rafael Garcia-Rojas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, Hernandez-Vivas v. INS, 23 F.3d 1557, 1560 (9th Cir.1994). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia-Rojas’ motion to reopen for failure to establish reasonable cause for his absence from the June 7,1990 deportation hearing. See Hemandez-Vivas, 23 F.3d at 1559 (mistaken belief that a timely motion to change venue negated court appearance does not constitute reasonable cause excusing failure to appear). Garcia-Rojas’ argument that the BIA and IJ rejected his motion under an incorrect legal standard is not supported by the record.

*574 Garda-Rojas’ contention that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief under NACARA is without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e) (establishing filing deadlines for motions to reopen seeking relief under NACARA).

Garda-Rojas’ contention that the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen violates his due process rights is also without merit. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.

PETITION 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
425 F. App'x 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafael-garcia-rojas-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2011.