David Woody v. John Halferty

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2894
___________________________
Jaime R. Samol Curruchiche
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: February 24, 2023
Filed: March 1, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jaime Curruchiche petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on an
allegedly defective Notice to Appear.

-- 1 of 2 --

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Curruchiche’s motion to
reopen as untimely because he admittedly filed it past the deadline, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Mshihiri v. Holder, 753 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and we will not consider his unexhausted equitable-tolling arguments,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Villanueva v. Holder, 615 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2010).
Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion by denying the motion on alternative grounds.
Curruchiche’s jurisdictional arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See
Tino v. Garland, 13 F.4th 708, 709 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); Ali v. Barr, 924
F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). He disagrees with those decisions, but we are bound
by them. See Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc);
see also United States v. Escobar, 970 F.3d 1022, 1027 (8th Cir. 2020). And although
he now argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) is not a claim-processing rule, we do not
consider that argument because he undisputedly advanced the opposite legal theory
in his motion. See Bakor v. Barr, 958 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --