NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, AKA No. 19-71735
Carlos A. Contreras, AKA Pedro Garcia,
AKA Pedro Rodriguez, AKA Pedro Agency No. A079-768-854
Rodriguez Garcia,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Rodriguez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
*
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).
of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de novo
questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Garcia’s motion
to reopen and reconsider as untimely, where he filed the motion more than 4 years
after the order of removal became final and Rodriguez-Garcia failed to
demonstrate that he met the requirements for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. §§
1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2); see also Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677-79 (9th Cir.
2011) (discussing the circumstances in which a movant may be entitled to
equitable tolling).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Garcia’s motion
to reopen and reconsider where his challenges to the agency’s jurisdiction under
Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), fail under Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-71735