Ruben Avisai Flores Ramirez sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Under immigration law, a motion to reopen must generally be filed within ninety days of the final removal order. Flores Ramirez argued that the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which tightened requirements for Notices to Appear, created an extraordinary circumstance that should toll this deadline. He contended that the change in law justified reopening his case to address a defective Notice to Appear. The BIA denied the motion, and Flores Ramirez appealed to the Ninth Circuit, also seeking review of the BIA's refusal to use its sua sponte authority to reopen the case on its own.
The panel addressed two primary issues. First, regarding equitable tolling, the court explained that while changes in law can constitute extraordinary circumstances, Flores Ramirez failed to meet this burden. The court noted that the legal principle established in Niz-Chavez was already the law of the Ninth Circuit under Lopez v. Barr at the time the BIA dismissed his original appeal. Because the BIA follows the precedent of the circuit where the case originated, the law was not unsettled in California. Consequently, Niz-Chavez did not create a new extraordinary circumstance. Second, the court found the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence. Flores Ramirez offered no explanation for why he did not file under the existing Lopez precedent, nor did he explain why he waited 4.5 months after the Niz-Chavez ruling was released to file his motion. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Second, the court addressed its jurisdiction over the BIA's refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings. Citing Menendez-Gonzalez v. Barr, the panel held that it lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions absent legal or constitutional error. Finding no such error, the court could not review that portion of the BIA's decision.
The petition is denied in part and dismissed in part. The decision reinforces that a Supreme Court ruling does not automatically toll the ninety-day deadline for motions to reopen if the underlying legal principle was already established by controlling circuit precedent. It also clarifies that petitioners must actively demonstrate diligence in filing after a legal change occurs. Furthermore, the ruling confirms that the Ninth Circuit cannot review a BIA decision to decline sua sponte reopening, limiting the avenues for relief in such scenarios. The temporary stay of removal is lifted immediately.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download