Bahadar Lakha v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         MAY 28 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    BAHADAR RAM LAKHA,                               No. 13-70009
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A029-904-467
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 13, 2014**
    Before:        CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Bahadar Ram Lakha, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an
    order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen
    removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review
    for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder,
    *
    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).
    
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
    for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Lakha’s motion
    to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel by his first former attorney
    because he filed the motion nearly three years after issuance of his final order of
    removal, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and failed to demonstrate the due diligence
    necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 680
     (holding that the tolling period ends “when the alien obtains a complete
    record of his immigration proceedings and is able to review that information with
    competent counsel”).
    We lack jurisdiction to consider Lakha’s unexhausted claims of ineffective
    assistance of counsel by his second and third former attorneys and contentions
    regarding his lack of motive to delay filing his motion to reopen at an earlier time.
    See Tijani v. Holder, 
    628 F.3d 1071
    , 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                    13-70009
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-70009

Judges: Clifton, Bea, Watford

Filed Date: 5/28/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024