Gerardo Garcia-Ortiz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERARDO GARCIA-ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72388
Agency No. A034-614-679
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JAN 13 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
Gerardo Garcia-Ortiz petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) order denying as untimely his motion to reconsider and remand
proceedings. We deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that, whether considered a
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, Garcia-Ortiz’s motion was untimely as
he filed it nearly seven years after the underlying BIA decision and failed to
demonstrate that an applicable exception applied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B)
(30-day deadline for motions to reconsider); § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (90-day deadline
for motions to reopen).
Garcia-Ortiz argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v.
Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), warrants equitable tolling. But that case has no
application here. A Notice to Appear need not contain the date, place, and time of
the hearing to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court. See United States v.
Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc); Aguilar
Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2020). Nor does the stop-time rule at
issue in Pereira have any bearing on this case for it is undisputed that Garcia-Ortiz
was statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --