Eddie Paredes-Perez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 382 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 22 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE PAREDES-PEREZ, No. 13-71408
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-813-458
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Eddie Paredes-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying
Paredes-Perez’s motion to reopen his 1992 removal proceedings. The BIA denied
the motion as untimely. The motion was filed years after the expiration of the 90-
day filing period, and petitioner does not contend that any of the exceptions to that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
limitation apply. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2)–(3),
1003.23(b)(4).
Paredes-Perez contends that the underlying criminal conviction on which the
deportation was based is now unsound because the conviction has been expunged
under California’s state rehabilitative procedures, and also, because a 2007
decision of this court invalidated the conviction. See Paredes-Perez v. Keisler, 252
F. App’x 132 (9th Cir. 2007). Neither contention has merit.
Petitioner has never shown that the expungement vitiated the immigration
consequences of the conviction within the meaning of Lujan-Armendariz v. INS,
222 F.3d 728, 749–50 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled in part by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder,
646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011). This court’s 2007 decision held only that in a
subsequent removal proceeding, the agency had not relied on appropriate
documentation to establish the conviction. It did not vitiate the conviction itself.
Petitioner has not provided any plausible justification either for reopening, or for
his delay.
The BIA correctly ruled that the motion to reopen was untimely.
Petition for review is DENIED.
2