Patel v. Holder ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAYESH D. PATEL, No. 07-71800
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-949-648
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jayesh D. Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 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, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Patel’s motion to reopen as
untimely where it was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s July 23, 1998,
order dismissing his underlying appeal, and Patel failed to demonstrate he qualified
for an exception to the filing deadline or show the due diligence required for
equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
672, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011). It follows that Patel’s due process claim fails. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for
a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Contrary to Patel’s contention, the BIA provided sufficient reasoning in its
decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Patel’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-71800