HUGO HERNANDEZ CEREN V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-72870 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO HERNANDEZ CEREN, AKA Hugo Ceren, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-72870 Agency No. A073-956-722 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: BOGGS,*** HAWKINS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Hugo Hernandez Ceren petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen and reconsider based on a * 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). *** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. change in the law. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part. The BIA reasonably denied Hernandez Ceren’s motion to reopen or reconsider because he filed it well outside the statutory deadlines of ninety days for a motion to reopen and thirty days for a motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), (7)(C)(i); Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1230–32 (9th Cir. 2020). A favorable change in the case law is not an exception to the filing deadlines for motions to reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)-(iv), though it can be the basis for equitable tolling, Goulart v. Garland, 18 F.4th 653, 654 (9th Cir. 2021). However, Hernandez Ceren cannot establish that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statutory deadlines, as he waited over two years after the relevant decision to file his motion, and there is no evidence he diligently pursued relief. See id. at 654-55; see also Lona, 958 F.3d at 1230 32. Hernandez Ceren also argues the BIA erred by rejecting his request for sua sponte reopening based on the length of time that he waited to file his motion. Even were we to conclude that Hernandez Ceren did not waive this issue by failing to “specifically and distinctly” address it in his opening brief, Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), we lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary decision by the BIA because it did not rest on a legal or constitutional error. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 2 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.1 1 We deny Hernandez Ceren’s motions to stay removal (Docket Nos. 2 and 7) as moot. 3
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.
