Maria Peraza Renteria v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA LUISA PERAZA RENTERIA, No. 16-72209
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-189-411
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Luisa Peraza Renteria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Peraza Renteria’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion over three years after her final
order of removal, and failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant
equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception,
fraud or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such
circumstances).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Peraza-Renteria’s remaining
contentions regarding ineffective assistance of 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 16-72209