Sanchez Sanchez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 21-1028
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, No. 21-1028 Agency No. Petitioner, A092-272-001 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 27, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Sanchez Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his motion to

reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the

petition for review.

The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as

untimely. See id. (explaining equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the

petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).

Sanchez did not establish that he acted with due diligence. He did not file the

motion to reopen for over sixteen years after his final order of removal, and he

did not provide an explanation about what “reasonable efforts [he made] to

pursue relief” or why he “was prevented from discovering the ineffective

assistance of defense counsel.” Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 54 F.4th 597, 606–

07 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). In other words, Sanchez has not provided

evidence to establish that “by the exercise of reasonable diligence [he] . . . could

not have discovered essential information bearing on the claim” prior to

December 2020. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184–85 (9th Cir.

2001) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d 582,

599 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 21-1028