KARL JOHNSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen, as it properly considered the submitted evidence and reasonably determined it insufficient to warrant reopening. The petitioner's due process claims fail because the BIA's denial was neither arbitrary nor irrational, and there is a presumption the BIA reviewed the complete record.
[1] The Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be reversed only if the denial is arbitrary, irrational, or co…
[2] A petitioner challenging the BIA's consideration of evidence in a motion to reopen must overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the entire record submitted.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“”
Standard for reviewing BIA denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJuan Manuel Mozqueda Villalobos, a Mexican citizen, filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals in an immigration proceeding. The B…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Predisposition To Commit Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
MEMORANDUM **
Juan Manuel Mozqueda Villalobos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F. 3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion because it considered the evidence Petitioner submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F. 3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen will be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
Petitioner’s contention that the BIA violated due process by denying his motion to reopen therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F. 3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
Petitioner’s contention that the BIA violated due process by not considering the entirety of the evidence he submitted also fails because Petitioner has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F. 3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.