Eugenia Paris v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENIA PARIS, AKA Jenny Paris, Nos. 19-71130
20-71024
Petitioner,
Agency No. A026-823-395
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Eugenia Paris, a native and citizen1 of Romania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying her motions to reopen
*
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).
1
In her opening brief, Paris refers to herself as a citizen of Romania
and also asserts that her Romanian citizenship was revoked. We do not address the
issue of her Romanian citizenship because it is not before the court in this petition
for review.
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 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). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 19-71130, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Paris’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where it was the seventh
such motion and was filed more than eleven years after the BIA’s final order of
removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where
Paris failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (deadline for
filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented
from filing because of a deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts
with due diligence” in discovering such circumstances).
Paris does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agency’s
determination that she failed to demonstrate any exception to the filing restrictions
that apply to motions to reopen. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
As to petition No. 20-71024, Paris does not raise, and has therefore waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate prejudice
2 19-71130
as a result of any ineffective assistance by her current counsel, Maria Janossy, and
to the BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate a statutory or regulatory
exception to the time and number limitations that apply to motions to reopen. See
Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d 1072 at 1079-80.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Paris’s motion to reopen as
untimely and number-barred where it was the eighth such motion and was filed
more than twelve years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Paris failed to establish
the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan,
646 F.3d at 679.
As to petition Nos. 19-71130 and 20-71024, we lack jurisdiction to consider
Paris’s contentions of error by the immigration judge or the merits of her
withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture claims because these
consolidated petitions for review are not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the
date of the final order of removal.”).
We decline to reach Paris’s contentions regarding her convictions that were
raised for the first time in her reply brief. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120
(9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are
waived.”).
3 19-71130
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
4 19-71130