Victor Guardado-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Victor Guardado-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

530 F. App'x 623

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 2013

Docket11-71907

StatusUnpublished

This text of 530 F. App'x 623 (Victor Guardado-Rodriguez 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

Victor Guardado-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 530 F. App'x 623 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Manuel Guardado-Rodríguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed circumstances in Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed five months after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and Guardado-Rodríguez failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 680-81 (petitioner “[a]p-parently ... took no affirmative steps to investigate” whether prior counsel adequately prepared claim); Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir.2007) (no evidence in record of any actions taken, after becoming suspicious of the fraud, until meeting with present counsel). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where Guardado-Rodríguez failed to establish material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentia-ry material.”).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Manuel Guardado-Rodríguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed circumstances in Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed five months after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and Guardado-Rodríguez failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 680-81 (petitioner “[a]p-parently ... took no affirmative steps to investigate” whether prior counsel adequately prepared claim); Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir.2007) (no evidence in record of any actions taken, after becoming suspicious of the fraud, until meeting with present counsel). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where Guardado-Rodríguez failed to establish material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentia-ry material.”).

PETITION 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)

530 F. App'x 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-guardado-rodriguez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack