ABEL ARCIGA-LORENZANO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70922 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 28 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABEL ARCIGA-LORENZANO; BRIAN ARCIGA-ZARATE, No. 13-70922 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A075-476-280 A075-476-282 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. Abel Arciga-Lorenzano and Brian Arciga-Zarate, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial 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). a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. As the government concedes, Arciga-Lorenzano s departure from the United States did not deprive the BIA of jurisdiction to consider his motion to reopen. See Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely petitioners motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners filed their motion eight years after their order of deportation became administratively final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 680-81 (finding no due diligence by a petitioner who had reason to suspect that her former attorneys had not adequately prepared her case but who nevertheless took no affirmative steps to investigate their errors after the BIA had denied her appeal). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-70922

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.