Carlos Juarez-Aleman v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS JUAREZ-ALEMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73954
Agency No. A029-258-535
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Juarez-Aleman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider the denial of his prior motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73954
denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo questions of law and
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Juarez-Aleman’s motion to reconsider, where the motion failed to identify any
error of law or fact in the BIA’s previous order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice
to prevail on a due process challenge). Juarez-Aleman’s underlying motion to
reopen was untimely, and he did not present sufficient evidence of due diligence
for equitable tolling of the filing deadlines. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), (2);
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is
available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due
to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in
discovering such circumstances). Juarez-Aleman also did not include with his
underlying motion evidence sufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for relief
under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”).
See NACARA, Pub. L. 105-100, § 203, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(2).
The record does not support Juarez-Aleman’s contention that the BIA failed
to consider relevant evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73954
Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review
the record).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Juarez-Aleman’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --