MIRIAM BRISENO-GARCIA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71714 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIRIAM SELENNE BRISENOGARCIA, No. 11-71714 Agency No. A073-952-353 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 13, 2012** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Miriam Selenne Briseno-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Briseno-Garcia s motion to reopen where she filed the motion over six years after she was ordered deported, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and she did not establish a basis for equitable tolling, see SocopGonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where, despite due diligence, petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner s control). Briseno-Garcia s contention that the denial of reopening violated her right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim). In light of our disposition, we need not reach Briseno-Garcia s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-71714

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.