Margarita Vizcarra de Basilio, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 22, 2011.
425 Fed. Appx. 709
MEMORANDUM **
Margarita Vizcarra de Basilio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vizcarra de Basilio’s motion to reopen because the evidence Vizcarra de Basilio submitted with her motion does not compel the conclusion that she suffered from a serious illness sufficient to establish an exceptional circumstance that would excuse her failure to appear. See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.2002).
The BIA did not err by declining to consider the new evidence Vizcarra de Basilio submitted on appeal. See
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
WAPATO HERITAGE, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; United States Department of The Interior; United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-36150.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 2011. Filed March 22, 2011.
425 Fed. Appx. 709
Pamela J. Derusha, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Andrew Sean Biviano, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BREYER,* District Judge.
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff-Appellant Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. (Wapato), appeals the district court’s orders denying its motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration, and granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount additional facts, except as necessary to explain our decision. In a separate opinion, we address, among other matters, Wapato’s claim that the Lease is ambiguous as to whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was the Lessor under the Lease. Having considered Wapato’s
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Wapato’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment rulings. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.2006). Wapato did not present “newly discovered evidence,” but instead merely raised a new argument that the United States failed to locate and submit at summary judgment a copy of Exhibit A to the Lease. See Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988); see also Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir.2003).
Wapato admits that it did not exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit regarding the 99-year Replacement Lease. Faras v. Hodel, 845 F.2d 202, 203-04 (9th Cir.1988). Wapato further failed to introduce objective evidence that the BIA harbors administrative bias toward it such that pursuit of an administrative remedy would be futile. Anderson v. Babbitt, 230 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2000). The BIA articulated rational reasons for not approving the proposed 99-year Replacement Lease, such as the fact that a majority of the Landowners did not consent to the Replacement Lease, and that Wapato had not addressed the BIA’s environmental impact concerns.
Wapato also failed to prove that the BIA owes it fiduciary duties. Wapato is a licensed Washington limited liability corporation, not a Native American or Native American tribe to whom the BIA owes a fiduciary duty. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 226, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983).
Finally, Wapato, as plaintiff, had ample opportunity to join any necessary parties. Wapato does not explain why the Landowners are now necessary parties, pursuant to
AFFIRMED.