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.
Mitchel Luis ZEGARRA-CARRION, aka Mitchel L. Zegarra, aka Mitchel Luis Zegarra; Rocio Carmen Vera, aka Rocio Carmen Vera Chavez de Zegarra, Petitioners, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Mitchel Luis Zegarra-Carrion and Rocio Carmen Vera, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and the denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and terminate as untimely where it was filed more than eight years after the order of removal became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), and petitioners did not establish that equitable tolling was warranted where their contentions that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over their proceedings are foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”), see Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1230-31 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing, in part, the application of equitable tolling to deadlines on motions to reopen).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that Zagarra-Carrion's allegedly defective notice of hearing violated his right to due process. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
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. 20-71026
Decided: September 28, 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)