JESUS ROJAS-CASTRO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-70174 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS ROJAS-CASTRO, AKA Jesus Rojas, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70174 Agency No. A205-718-084 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Jesus Rojas-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings and his request for administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * 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). discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas-Castro’s motion to reconsider where he failed to identify any error of law or fact in the prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner’s motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior decision.”). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas-Castro’s motion to reopen, where he failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and any alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy Matter of Lozada requirements was fatal to ineffective assistance of counsel claim where ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record). There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of administrative closure. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891-93 (9th Cir. 2018) (nonexhaustive list of factors in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), provides standard for reviewing administrative closure decisions). Rojas-Castro’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider his request for administrative closure, 2 17-70174 ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis fail as unsupported by the record. To the extent Rojas-Castro challenges the merits of the denial of his applications for asylum and related relief and for cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions because he did not timely petition for review as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 17-70174
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.
