Pedro Sanchez Sanchez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO SANCHEZ SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1028
Agency No.
A092-272-001
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 27, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Sanchez Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 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
JUN 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1028
reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as
untimely. See id. (explaining equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the
petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).
Sanchez did not establish that he acted with due diligence. He did not file the
motion to reopen for over sixteen years after his final order of removal, and he
did not provide an explanation about what “reasonable efforts [he made] to
pursue relief” or why he “was prevented from discovering the ineffective
assistance of defense counsel.” Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 54 F.4th 597, 606–
07 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). In other words, Sanchez has not provided
evidence to establish that “by the exercise of reasonable diligence [he] . . . could
not have discovered essential information bearing on the claim” prior to
December 2020. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184–85 (9th Cir.
2001) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Smith v. Davis, 953 F.3d 582,
599 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --