ARMANDO SEVERINO-ZUNIGA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-71335 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO SEVERINO-ZUNIGA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71335 Agency No. A079-611-901 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Armando Severino-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting his request to withdraw his application for admission, and the BIA’s order regarding his motions 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal determinations, and for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand and a motion to reopen. Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1999). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We do not consider the materials Severino-Zuniga submitted with his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). The BIA properly dismissed as untimely Severino-Zuniga’s appeal from the IJ’s grant of his request to withdraw his application for admission where he filed it over three months after the IJ’s decision and did not provide any explanation for the late filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b)-(c). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review Severino-Zuniga’s due process contentions. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the IJ’s denial of SeverinoZuniga’s motion to reopen. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 791-92 (standard of review); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to 2 17-71335 prevail on a due process claim) Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand Severino-Zuniga’s case where he failed to offer evidence that was unavailable and incapable of being discovered or presented at the former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where evidence proffered was not previously unavailable). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 17-71335
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.
