Fernando Barcenas-Carranza v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 485 F. App'x 254 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 12 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FERNANDO BARCENAS-CARRANZA;                       No. 10-72107
    MARIA DEL ROSARIO FLORES-
    ABARCA,                                           Agency Nos. A096-047-956
    A096-047-957
    Petitioners,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted October 9, 2012 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Fernando Barcenas-Carranza and Maria Del Rosario Flores-Abarca, natives
    and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
    discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674
    (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
    reopen as untimely where petitioners failed to establish that they filed the motion
    within 90 days of meeting with present counsel and learning of the harm resulting
    from the alleged actions of their former representative. See 
    id. at 679
    (equitable
    tolling period ends, and 90-day filing period begins, “when petitioner definitively
    learns of the harm resulting from counsel’s deficiency”). No ineffective assistance
    claim has been raised against present counsel.
    This disposition in no way precludes petitioners from filing a subsequent
    motion to reopen with the BIA if circumstances exist that would support further
    examination of their case.
    The Clerk is instructed to serve this disposition not only on petitioners’
    counsel, but also on petitioners at 542 East Phillips Street, Ontario, California,
    91761-0000.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    10-72107
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-72107

Citation Numbers: 485 F. App'x 254

Judges: Rawlinson, Murguia, Watford

Filed Date: 10/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024