JUAN MANCILLA-TORRES V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-71831 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS MANCILLA-TORRES, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-71831 Agency No. A075-265-871 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Mancilla-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. The immigration judge had denied his motion to * 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). reopen his removal proceedings and his request to reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. The Board correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mancilla-Torres’s motion to reopen his April 2001 removal order because that order was reinstated in May 2003. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), if “an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed . . . , under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” Accordingly, a “motion to reopen a reinstated prior removal order is barred under § 1231(a)(5).” Bravo-Bravo v. Garland, 40 F.4th 911, 916 (9th Cir. 2022). Therefore, neither the immigration judge nor the Board had jurisdiction to address Mancilla-Torres’s challenge to the removal order. The Board also determined that it lacked authority to reopen the removal proceedings sua sponte. Because Section 1231(a)(5) provides that “an alien’s prior removal order and proceedings are ‘not subject to being reopened, . . . the regulation providing the [Board’s] sua sponte reopening authority cannot override that command.’” Bravo-Bravo, 40 F.4th at 917 (quoting Rodriguez-Saragosa v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2018)) (internal quotation marks omitted). PETITION DENIED. 2
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.
