Jose Vasquez-Trejo v. Jefferson Sessions , 700 F. App'x 755 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ-TREJO, No. 16-70434
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-303-898
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alejandro Vasquez-Trejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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. Avagyan
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Trejo’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after his final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Vasquez-Trejo failed to establish the due
diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646
F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely
filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long the alien
exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Because the due diligence determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Vasquez-Trejo’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or the alleged ineffective assistance of
prior counsel. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-70434