SERGIO OSEGUERA-SALCE V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-71500 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO OSEGUERA-SALCE, AKA Sergio Salce Oseguera, AKA Sergio Oseguera-Salch, AKA Sergio Osegura, AKA Sergio Salce Osegura, AKA Salce Oseguera Sergio, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71500 Agency No. A092-029-292 MEMORANDUM * Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Sergio Oseguera-Salce, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). removal proceedings. We 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 questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oseguera-Salce’s motion as untimely, where the motion was filed more than one year after the agency’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (setting a 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen), and Oseguera-Salce failed to establish changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Contrary to Oseguera-Salce’s contention, the BIA did not err in not addressing Oseguera-Salce’s competency in the order under review, where the IJ had addressed competency under Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I.&N. Dec. 474 (BIA 2011), during his underlying proceedings, the medical evidence submitted with the motion did not show a material change since the IJ hearing, and the BIA considered the new medical evidence as it related to his eligibility for relief, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Finally, Oseguera-Salce’s contentions that the BIA ignored arguments raised in his motion or did not follow proper criteria in denying his motion are not 2 14-71500 supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-71500
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.
