Centeno

Centeno v. Gonzales

Good Law
227 F. App'x 551
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 16, 2007No. 04-75672California284 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Armando Centeno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Centeno’s motion to reopen, filed more than eight years after the entry of the in absentia order of deportation, was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(iii)(A) (requiring an alien seeking to rescind an order of removal *552 entered in absentia to file a motion to reopen within 180 days of the date of the order).

We reject Centeno’s contention that the 180-day filing deadline for motions to reopen based on exceptional circumstances does not apply to him because he did not receive adequate notice of the deportation hearing. Centeno concedes that he was personally served with written notice, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in…

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.