Miguel Saenz-Kobel v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL SAENZ-KOBEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71719
Agency No. A092-439-085
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Saenz-Kobel petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion
to reopen. In 1997, Saenz-Kobel conceded removability for an Arizona drug
smuggling conviction and waived appeal. Saenz-Kobel filed his motion to reopen
more than ten years after the immigration judge ordered him removed. This was
FILED
NOV 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
untimely because motions to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final
administrative order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Saenz-Kobel’s removal
order became administratively final when he waived appeal in 1997. 8 C.F.R. §
1003.39.
Saenz-Kobel argues that Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzalez, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.
2007), is an intervening change in the law that renders his previous removal order
unlawful. His argument is incorrect. An intervening change of law is not an
excuse for filing an untimely motion to reopen. Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509
F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, Saenz-Kobel’s reliance on Ruiz-Vidal
is misplaced, as that case considered the government’s burden of proof in
demonstrating that an alien is removable under INA section 237(a)(2)(B)(I). Ruiz-
Vidal did not consider a situation where the petitioner conceded removability. In
any event, Ruiz-Vidal is not an intervening change in the law. See Matter of
Paulus, 11 I. & N. 274, 1965 WL 12279 (BIA 1965).
Petition DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --