Domingo Andres Canto-Galves v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOMINGO ANDRES CANTO-GALVES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1307
Agency No.
A209-138-759
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Andres Canto-Galves, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
* 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
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1307
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Canto-Galves’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed ninety-five days after the final removal
order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within
ninety days of the final removal order), and he has not established changed country
conditions in Mexico to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008)
(movant must produce material evidence that conditions in country of nationality
had changed).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the filing
deadline based on ineffective assistance of counsel where he did not comply with
the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637
(BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance alleged is not plain on the face of the
record. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
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).
Because Canto-Galves does not challenge the agency’s determination not to
exercise its sua sponte authority, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1307
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --