Escobedo-Molina v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60256 Document: 00516601245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60256
Summary Calendar FILED
January 6, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Alejandro Escobedo-Molina, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A092 085 989
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alejandro Escobedo-Molina, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision denying his
motion to reopen or reconsider removal proceedings. We review the BIA’s
legal conclusions de novo and, where the agency has applied the correct law,
we review the denial of reconsideration or reopening under a highly
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60256 Document: 00516601245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2023
No. 22-60256
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland,
9 F.4th 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-1323, 2022 WL 4651375(U.S. Oct. 3, 2022).
On appeal, Escobedo-Molina argues that, in violation of his due
process rights and in an abuse of the agency’s discretion, the BIA ignored his
specific statements of “when and how” he learned of his potential claims for
purposes of equitable tolling of the limitations period for reopening or
reconsideration, and the fact that his claims relied on not just I.N.S. v. St.
Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), but also on Garcia-Carias v. Holder, 697 F.3d 257(5th Cir. 2012), and Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016). To
be entitled to equitable tolling, Escobedo-Molina had to show that: “(1) he
has been pursuing his rights diligently and (2) some extraordinary
circumstance has stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Gonzalez
Hernandez, 9 F.4th at 284. Given the BIA’s reasoned and specific analysis of
the record evidence and the timeline relating to the three cases on which
Escobedo-Molina relied, Escobedo-Molina’s continued vague
representations as to when he learned of his claims and took action on that
knowledge are insufficient to show that the agency decision was completely
unfounded in the evidence or its denial of equitable tolling otherwise so
irrational as to be arbitrary. See Masin-Ventura v. Garland, 41 F.4th 482, 484
(5th Cir. 2022); Gonzalez Hernandez, 9 F.4th at 284; Gonzalez-Cantu v.
Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 305 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2017).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2