Opinion
19-71735
07-01-2021
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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A079-768-854
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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.