eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-08

Maria Jimenez-Jimenez v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ELENA JIMENEZ-JIMENEZ,                    No.    18-70919
Petitioner,                     Agency No. A019-117-766
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before:      SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Elena Jimenez-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales,
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
*
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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Jimenez-Jimenez’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion more than twenty-four years
after her final order of deportation, and she did not present sufficient evidence of
due diligence for 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).
Because the due diligence determination is dispositive, the BIA was not
required to address prior counsels’ competence, and we do not address Jimenez-
Jimenez’s contentions regarding prejudice. 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                                    18-70919