HERNAN LOPEZ-CABRERA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70035 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 2 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERNAN LOPEZ-CABRERA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70035 Agency No. A089-853-856 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Hernan Lopez-Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, and review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a * 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). motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the order of removal became final and Lopez-Cabrera has not established that his motion falls within any exception to filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-(iv). Contrary to Lopez-Cabrera’s contention, the BIA did not mischaracterize the motion to reopen or fail to properly address his contentions. Accordingly the BIA did not violate due process in denying the motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70035

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.