Jaime Curruchiche v. Merrick Garland, No. 22-2894 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely, as he admittedly filed it past the deadline.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2894 ___________________________ Jaime R. Samol Curruchiche lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 24, 2023 Filed: March 1, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jaime Curruchiche petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on an allegedly defective Notice to Appear. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Curruchiche’s motion to reopen as untimely because he admittedly filed it past the deadline, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Mshihiri v. Holder, 753 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and we will not consider his unexhausted equitable-tolling arguments, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Villanueva v. Holder, 615 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2010). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion by denying the motion on alternative grounds. Curruchiche’s jurisdictional arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). He disagrees with those decisions, but we are bound by them. See Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc); see also United States v. Escobar, 970 F.3d 1022, 1027 (8th Cir. 2020). And although he now argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) is not a claim-processing rule, we do not consider that argument because he undisputedly advanced the opposite legal theory in his motion. See Bakor v. Barr, 958 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. ______________________________ -2-
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.
