Lixin Wang v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 20 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LIXIN WANG,                                      No. 13-72268
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A089-992-401
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 13, 2015**
    Before:        LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Lixin Wang, a native and citizen of China, 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
    *
    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).
    discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    ,
    791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion to reopen as
    untimely, where it was filed more than one year after the order of removal became
    final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days
    of the final order of removal), and Wang has not established the due diligence
    necessary for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 678 (9th Cir. 2011) (the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be
    equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception,
    fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence” in discovering
    such circumstances).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    13-72268
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-72268

Judges: Leavy, Callahan, Smith

Filed Date: 5/20/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024