ANTONIO MEZA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-71998 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO ANSELMO MEZA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71998 Agency No. A095-310-310 MEMORANDUM* JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Antonio Anselmo Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions * 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). of law. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Meza’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed eight years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Meza failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (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 the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Meza’s contention that the BIA failed to consider facts and evidence submitted with his motion is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice). Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not address Meza’s contentions regarding his 2005 proceedings and his eligibility for relief. Meza’s duplicative request for a stay of removal is denied as moot, and the temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until the issuance of the mandate. 2 15-71998 Meza’s request for an abeyance is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-71998

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.