GABRIELA CASAS-FIGUEROA, AKA Claudia Chinchilla De Donez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIELA CASAS-FIGUEROA, AKA
Claudia Chinchilla De Donez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73614
Agency No. A097-335-793
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gabriela Casas-Figueroa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of
her prior motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen
* 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
APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73614
or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Casas-Figueroa’s motion
to reconsider for failure to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s denial of her
motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2). The agency properly determined
that Casas-Figueroa’s underlying motion to reopen was untimely, and she did not
present sufficient evidence for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(1); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (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 the petitioner exercises due
diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Casas-Figueroa’s remaining
contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and exceptional
circumstances. 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).
Casas-Figueroa’s motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied. See
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73614
appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the
immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --