VICTOR PEDROZA-MOLINA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70967 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 26 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR MANUEL PEDROZAMOLINA and ANDREA LUCIANOURQUIDES, No. 13-70967 Agency Nos. A075-669-010 A075-669-011 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Victor Manuel Pedroza-Molina and Andrea Luciano-Urquides, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where they filed the motion more than eight years after their removal orders became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and petitioners failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner 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). Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-70967

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.