MARIA PERALTA GARCIA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-73201 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 6 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA CLAUDIA PERALTA GARCIA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-73201 Agency No. A097-354-895 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Maria Claudia Peralta Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on 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). * 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). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Peralta Garcia’s motion to reopen as untimely where her motion was filed more than 11 years after the BIA’s December 28, 2005, order dismissing her appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Peralta Garcia failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances). The record does not support her contention that the BIA expected her to comply with the threshold requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), for all the attorneys she consulted. Because untimeliness is dispositive, we do not reach Peralta Garcia’s remaining contentions regarding ineffective assistance, prejudice, and hardship. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-73201

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.