Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barrientos v. Lynch

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 19, 2016

Arturo Alexander Barrientos, Petitioner,
v.
Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Respondent.

         Agency No. A206-548-254

          Nicholas Smith (argued) and Hain-Whei Hsueh, Certified Law Students; Stephen A. Tollafield, Supervising Counsel; Gary A. Watt, Supervising Counsel; Hastings Appellate Project, San Francisco, California; for Petitioner.

          Manuel A. Palau (argued), Trial Attorney; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

          Before: Jerome Farris, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

          ORDER

         SUMMARY [*]

         Immigration

         The panel granted Arturo Alexander Barrientos's motion asking the court to exercise its discretion to consider new evidence not filed with his petition for review which showed that the petition was timely filed because it complied with the conditions of the "prison mailbox" rule, Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(C).

         The panel held that under Rule 25(a)(2)(C) this court has discretion to refuse to consider, or to give less weight to, an inmate's declaration or notarized statement submitted after the inmate's legal filing. The panel granted Barrientos's motion to submit the new evidence, exercised its discretion to consider his affidavit and the prison's outgoing mail log, and concluded that his petition for review was timely filed.

         The panel held that it thus had jurisdiction over the petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and resolved the merits in a memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this order.

         We must determine whether we have jurisdiction over a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that our clerk's office received five days after the deadline for filing.

         I

         Arturo Alexander Barrientos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

         A

         Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), the "petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." This deadline is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (quoting Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)). The burden is on Barrientos to establish jurisdiction, as he is "the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.