Narrative Opinion Summary
A Guatemalan citizen petitioned for the review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed her appeal against an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen in absentia deportation proceedings. The case was under the court's jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a). The petitioner argued that she did not receive adequate notice of her deportation hearing and sought equitable tolling due to alleged deceptive actions by a notario. The BIA's decision was reviewed for abuse of discretion, while due process claims were assessed de novo. The court denied the petition for review, finding that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of delivery of the hearing notice sent via certified mail and was not entitled to equitable tolling as she could not substantiate claims against the notario. Other arguments were found unpersuasive. The decision remains unpublished and is not citable except under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. As a result, the petitioner's motion to reopen her deportation proceedings was denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Citing Unpublished Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case cannot be cited in court except as allowed under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The decision is not published and may not be cited in court except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Equitable Tolling in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner was not granted equitable tolling because she failed to demonstrate that her absence from the hearing was due to deceptive conduct by a notario.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the BIA ruled that she was not entitled to equitable tolling of the time period for filing her motion to reopen, as she failed to prove that her absence from the hearing was caused by deceptive actions of a notario.
Presumption of Delivery in Deportation Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Menendez-Oliveros was unable to rebut the presumption of delivery regarding the notice for her deportation hearing, which was sent by certified mail.
Reasoning: The BIA found that Menendez-Oliveros did not receive sufficient evidence to counter the presumption of delivery for the notice of her August 26, 1994 deportation hearing, which was sent via certified mail.
Review Standard for Motion to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, indicating a high threshold for overturning such decisions.
Reasoning: The BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while due process claims are reviewed de novo.