Manikam Reddy v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 556 F. App'x 598 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FEB 24 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MANIKAM REDDY,                                   No. 09-72465
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A072-401-325
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 18, 2014**
    Before:        ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Manikam Reddy, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
    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, Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir.
    2011), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reddy’s motion to reopen as
    untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after Reddy’s removal
    order became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Reddy failed to show the due
    diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 679
     (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from
    filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in
    discovering such circumstances).
    Because the timeliness issue is dispositive, we need not reach Reddy’s
    remaining contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    09-72465
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-72465

Citation Numbers: 556 F. App'x 598

Judges: Alarcon, Fernandez, O'Scannlain

Filed Date: 2/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024