Oscar Vasquez-Mata v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR VASQUEZ-MATA,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73308
Agency No. A201-243-859
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 20, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Vasquez-Mata (“Petitioner”) seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of the denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. The BIA issued its decision on July 22, 2016.
* 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).
FILED
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Petitioner did not petition for review until October 14, 2016—nearly three months
later. A “petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of
the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The petition for review is
therefore untimely, and we lack jurisdiction. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
Petitioner asks that we toll the deadline for filing his petition because he was
incarcerated at the time the BIA issued its decision. Our cases have recognized
only two circumstances under which we will exercise jurisdiction over an untimely
petition for review. First, we will allow a late filing “where there has been official
misleading [by the court or the BIA] as to the time within which to file a notice of
appeal.” Id. (quoting Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 630 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.
1980)) (alterations in original). Second, because a “petitioner should not be
penalized for the BIA’s failure to comply with the terms of the federal
regulations,” the “[t]ime for filing a review petition begins to run when the BIA
complies with the terms of federal regulations by mailing its decision to the
petitioner’s [or his counsel’s] address of record.” Id. (quoting Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)) (alterations in original).
Neither situation applies here, and we cannot otherwise toll the time for
petitioner to file his petition for review. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --