eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-05

Adelso Barrios-Calderon v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADELSO DANIEL BARRIOS-                          No.    15-73827
CALDERON, AKA Adelso Daniel Barrios,
Agency No. A070-819-144
Petitioner,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Adelso Daniel Barrios-Calderon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion 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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales,
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.
Ashcroft,
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrios-Calderon’s untimely
motion to reopen because Barrios-Calderon failed to establish that he qualified for
an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey,
    538 F.3d 988
    , 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant
must produce material evidence that conditions in country of nationality had
changed and establish a prima facie case for the relief sought).
Barrios-Calderon’s contention that the BIA violated his right to due process
fails. See Lata v. INS,
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to
prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2                                    15-73827