CIFUENTES v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-10No. No. 20-71446

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Cifuentes's motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Gilberto Tello Cifuentes, a Guatemalan national, appealed the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. He subsequently sought to reopen his removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals, but the BIA declined to do so. Cifuentes petitioned for judicial review of the BIA's denial.

The court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the motion to reopen. Cifuentes's notice of appeal, filed while he was represented by counsel, failed to clearly explain the specific reasons for appealing the immigration judge's decision and instead contained only vague and conclusory statements. Additionally, his counsel indicated an intention to file a supplemental brief but never did so. The court determined that Cifuentes's family circumstances and his attorney's shortcomings did not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant reopening the proceedings, and the BIA's decision was consistent with applicable law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Adequacy of notice of appeal to Board of Immigration Appeals
Grounds for reopening removal proceedings
Abuse of discretion standard in BIA decisions

Procedural posture

Cifuentes petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings after an immigration judge had denied his applications for asylum and related relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Gilberto Tello Cifuentes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion, Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1318 (9th Cir. 2006), in denying Petitioners motion. Petitioners Notice of Appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, which he submitted while represented by counsel, failed to meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reasons for the appeal. Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004). The Notice of Appeal offered only generic and conclusory reasons as to why or how the IJ erred. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195–96 (9th Cir. 1992). Counsel also failed to file a separate statement or brief after indicating that he would do so. Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1089–90 (9th Cir. 2002).

Petitioner otherwise fails to establish that reopening was warranted. His familial circumstances and counsels error do not constitute grounds obligating the BIA to reopen his proceedings. The BIA did not act “contrary to the law” in denying the motion. Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

PETITION DENIED.