Herrera

Herrera v. Holder

Good Law
318 F. App'x 499
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 2009No. 08-73636California427 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*500 MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

The regulations state that a motion to reopen proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioner’s final administrative order of removal was entered on April 19, 2005. Petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed on June 27, 2008, more than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See id.

Further, the regulations state that a party may file only one motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R.' § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen as also barred by numerical limitations.

The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.