Romeo Lazo-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMEO ANTONIO LAZO- No. 14-72763
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A098-283-894
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Romeo Antonio Lazo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
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.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and
review de novo questions of law. 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 Lazo-Rodriguez’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than six years after his final
order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must generally
be filed within 90 days of a final administrative order of removal). Lazo-
Rodriguez failed to demonstrate changed conditions in El Salvador to qualify for
the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to
warrant reopening), and failed to show the due diligence required for equitable
tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.
2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing
a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as petitioner exercises
due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
The BIA applied the appropriate legal standards in its diligence
determination, and provided a reasoned explanation for denying the motion to
reopen. See Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80; Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“What is
required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its
2 14-72763
decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lazo-Rodriguez’s remaining
contentions regarding ineffective assistance of his prior counsel.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72763