NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CATARINO MENDOZA-VALDEZ, AKA No. 16-73800
Jose Castillo,
Agency No. A071-954-652
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: BENNETT and LEE, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL,** District Judge.
Catarino Mendoza-Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the dismissal of his
motion to reopen. We DENY the petition.
Mendoza-Valdez concedes that he did not file his motion to reopen within the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for
the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
90-day time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) (motions to reopen must be filed within
90 days of entry of a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before
September 30, 1996, whichever is later). Mendoza-Valdez seeks to excuse this
untimely filing because of his vacated conviction, citing to Wiedersperg v. INS, 896
F.2d 1179 (9th Cir. 1990), and Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102 (9th
Cir. 2006).
Neither Wiedersperg nor Cardoso-Tlaseca, however, addresses procedural
time limitations. Rather, they discuss the “departure bar,” a jurisdictional bar that
prohibits an alien from making a motion to reopen or reconsider after leaving the
United States. See Wiedersperg, 896 F.2d at 1181–82; Cardoso-Tlaseca, 460 F.3d
at 1106–07. Indeed, Cardoso-Tlaseca dealt with a timely motion to reopen, 460
F.3d at 1104–05, and procedural time limitations were not in effect at the time
Wiedersperg was decided. See Executive Office for Immigration Review; Motions
and Appeals in Immigration Proceedings, 61 Fed. Reg. 18,900 (April 29, 1996)
(final rule establishing the 90-day time limit for motions to reopen). Accordingly,
Wiedersperg and Cardoso-Tlaseca do not excuse Mendoza-Valdez’s failure to file
his motion to reopen within the prescribed time limit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2