Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Pedro RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, aka Carlos A. Contreras, aka Pedro Garcia, aka Pedro Rodriguez, aka Pedro Rodriguez Garcia, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Pedro Rodriguez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Garcia's motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely, where he filed the motion more than 4 years after the order of removal became final and Rodriguez-Garcia failed to demonstrate that he met the requirements for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2); see also Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the circumstances in which a movant may be entitled to equitable tolling).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Garcia's motion to reopen and reconsider where his challenges to the agency's jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018), fail under Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.
Docket No: No. 19-71735
Decided: July 01, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)