Allan Ramon Garcia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLAN RAMON GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-18
Agency No.
A070-775-259
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Allan Ramon Garcia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen his
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
* 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
MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-18
reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). 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 in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Garcia did not show that notice was improper where he was personally
served with the order to show cause and was given written notice of the
consequences of failing to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1996) (written
notice of the time and place of proceedings and the consequences of failing to
appear required). Thus, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying
Garcia’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it over 24 years after the
filing deadline, and he did not establish that any statutory or regulatory
exceptions apply. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(iii)(A)(1) (an order of
deportation entered in absentia may only be rescinded upon a motion to reopen
filed within 180 days of the order if the alien demonstrates exceptional
circumstances); see also Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-57 (BIA
1998) (a motion to reopen seeking only to apply for relief unavailable to the
movant at the time of the hearing is still subject to the regulatory requirements
governing motions to reopen, including the filing deadline).
Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte is limited to contentions of legal or constitutional error.
See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020).
Garcia’s claim that the BIA violated due process by streamlining its

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-18
decision fails because he has not shown error. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,
350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s streamlined decision did not
violate due process).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --