Cornelio Lara-Ruiz v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 590 F. App'x 220 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1474
CORNELIO LARA-RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: January 12, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jaime Jasso, LAW OFFICES OF JAIME JASSO, Westlake Village,
California, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director,
Dana M. Camilleri, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cornelio Lara-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reconsider the denial
of his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.
A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law
or fact in the IJ’s prior decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(c) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (2014). We
review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of
discretion. Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir.
2009); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). We
will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law. Narine, 559 F.3d at 249.
“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion agreeing with the IJ that Lara-Ruiz’s motion to
reopen was untimely. Lara-Ruiz’s challenge to the finding that
he did not comply with the requirements under Matter of Lozada,
19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1998) fell short of showing that he was
entitled to have the ninety-day period for reopening equitably
tolled. See Kuusk v. Holder, 732 F.3d 302, 305 (4th Cir. 2013)
2
(petitioner must show why it was impossible to file the motion
on time); see also Mahmood v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 248, 252-53 (3d
Cir. 2005); Patel v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1011, 1016 (7th Cir.
2006). We note that Lara-Ruiz fails to argue that he was
entitled to equitable tolling for reasons other than having
complied with Lozada. See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d
241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in the argument
section of the opening brief are abandoned).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3