Domingo Ayala-Ortiz v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           NOV 16 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DOMINGO ROGELIO AYALA-ORTIZ,                      No. 11-71698
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A028-964-747
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted November 13, 2012 **
    Before:        CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Domingo Rogelio Ayala-Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
    an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings
    based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
    *
    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).
    § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
    Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for
    review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Ortiz’s motion to
    reopen as untimely where he filed the motion twenty years after the March 14,
    1990, final order of deportation, and fourteen years after the September 30, 1996,
    statutory motions deadline, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Ayala-Ortiz failed to
    show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
    Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 679
    .
    In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ayala-Ortiz’s contention
    regarding the BIA’s interpretation of 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.3
    (e). Ayala-Ortiz’s
    remaining contentions are unavailing.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    11-71698
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-71698

Filed Date: 11/16/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014