CASIMIRO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-71948 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CASIMIRO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-71948 Agency No. A209-798-701 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Casimiro Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review for 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 the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Ramirez’s motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where his asserted basis for failing to attend his hearing is that he misread the hearing date. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1). Thus, RamirezRamirez has not established that the IJ or BIA violated his right to due process by denying the motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Ramirez-Ramirez’s contention that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis fails as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-71948

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.