Juan Jasso Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 02 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JUAN JASSO RAMIREZ,                               No. 12-71227
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A089-267-911
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Submitted September 24, 2013 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Juan Jasso Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
    removal proceedings and to reinstate his voluntary departure order. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial 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).
    a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
    deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Jasso Ramirez’s
    motion to reopen in order to reinstate voluntary departure, where the motion was
    filed after his removal order became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2) (motion to
    reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and Jasso Ramirez failed to
    show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
    Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 679-80
     (no diligence where petitioner “[a]pparently. . .took
    no affirmative steps to investigate” whether prior counsel adequately prepared
    claim after having reason to suspect deficient performance).
    In his opening brief, Jasso Ramirez failed to raise, and therefore waived, any
    challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen based on ineffective
    assistance of counsel with respect to the filing of an untimely petition for review.
    See Rizk v. Holder, 
    629 F.3d 1083
    , 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives
    an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                  12-71227
    3   12-71227
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-71227

Judges: Rawlinson, Smith, Christen

Filed Date: 10/2/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024