RICHARD BERNARD V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70055 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 16 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD BERNARD, No. 13-70055 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-781-322 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Richard Bernard, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, * 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). 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bernard s untimely motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status for battered spouses, because Bernard failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to waive the one-year filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). The record belies Bernard s contention that the BIA did not adequately explain the basis for its extraordinary circumstances determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring only that the BIA announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable review). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by determining that Bernard s motion to reopen did not warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling is available where a petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond the petitioner s control). We lack jurisdiction to consider Bernard s unexhausted contentions regarding exceptional circumstances and extreme hardship determinations in relation to his stepson. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) 2 13-70055 (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in the petitioner s administrative proceedings before the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 13-70055
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.
