Corazon Macatangay Bagsic v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CORAZON MACATANGAY BAGSIC,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-305
Agency No.
A072-309-666
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Corazon Macatangay Bagsic, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-305
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bagsic’s motion to
reopen as number-barred and untimely where it was the third such motion and
was filed more than sixteen years after the final removal order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c), and Bagsic has not established that equitable tolling of the filing
deadline is warranted, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011)
(deadline may be equitably tolled when petitioner is prevented from filing
because of deception, fraud, or error, and petitioner acts with due diligence in
discovering such circumstances).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Bagsic’s remaining
contentions regarding her eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
We do not consider Bagsic’s due process contentions because the BIA
did not decide these issues, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,
829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and
Bagsic does not contend the BIA erred in finding that her due process claims
were not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,
1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in
waiver).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --