Victor Velazquez-Negrete v. Loretta E. Lynch , 632 F. App'x 381 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
VICTOR VELAZQUEZ-NEGRETE, No. 14-71075
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-320-880
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Victor Velazquez-Negrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velazquez-Negrete’s motion
to reopen as untimely where Velazquez-Negrete filed the motion more than four
years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and has not
demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable
tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due
to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in
discovering such circumstances).
Because untimeliness is dispositive, we do not reach Velazquez-Negrete’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-71075