JOY PANCHUM V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73484 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOY WINIFRED PANCHUM, Petitioner, No. 12-73484 Agency No. A036-706-467 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Joy Winifred Panchum, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing an immigration judge s denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * 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). discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Panchum s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed sixteen years after her deportation order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(1) (an alien has 180 days to file a motion to reopen to rescind the in absentia order if the alien can show that she failed to appear for the hearing due to exceptional circumstances), and Panchum failed to show the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling of the filing deadline is available where petitioner establishes that she was prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and acted with due diligence in discovering such circumstances). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-73484

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.