Mana DIARRA, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: December 08, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Raya Thomas, Attorney, Law Office of Raya Thomas, La Mesa, CA, for Petitioner Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, Russell John Verby, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Mana Diarra, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Diarra does not challenge the determination that his motion to reopen was untimely and that he did not establish an exception to the filing deadline. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).
Diarra's contentions that the IJ violated due process, constituting an exceptional situation that warranted sua sponte reopening, fail because Diarra was advised of his right to counsel, provided with a list of legal services, given ample time to seek counsel, assisted by the IJ in reviewing evidence in court, and the record reflects that Diarra understood the interpreter. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening only for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
As stated in the court's June 6, 2019, order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.