SUSANA PLANCARTE-DE PADILLA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72416 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSANA PLANCARTE-DE PADILLA Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72416 Agency No. A074-575-062 v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Susana Plancarte-De Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Plancarte-De Padilla’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed 14 years after her final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), and Plancarte-De Padilla failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien 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). Plancarte-De Padilla’s contention that the BIA failed to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling is not supported by the record. To the extent Plancarte-De Padilla is challenging the IJ’s sua sponte determination, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 107, 7081 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-72416

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.