Al Qasem Asaad v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 21 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ALI QASEM SALEH ASAAD,                            No. 08-71946
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A096-169-887
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 13, 2010 **
    Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Ali Qasem Saleh Asaad, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to
    reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
    for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Asaad’s motion to reopen as
    untimely because he filed the motion more than two years after the BIA’s March
    25, 2005, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Asaad failed to establish that he
    acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see 
    Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897
    ; see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 
    367 F.3d 1182
    , 1184 (9th Cir. 2004).
    To the extent Asaad alleges current counsel may have rendered ineffective
    assistance of counsel that caused Asaad’s lack of diligence, we lack jurisdiction to
    review that contention. See Puga v. Chertoff, 
    488 F.3d 812
    , 815 (9th Cir. 2007).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                    08-71946