GUILLERMO AYALA-PEREZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72762 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO AYALA-PEREZ, AKA Guillermo Perez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72762 Agency No. A092-169-546 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Guillermo Ayala-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 15 years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Ayala-Perez failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Ayala-Perez’s contention that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening for lack of due diligence does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ayala-Perez’s contentions regarding due process violations at his underlying 1999 removal proceedings because this petition is not timely as to the IJ’s 1999 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-72762

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.