Mingyuan Liu v. Loretta E. Lynch , 643 F. App'x 631 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 22 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MINGYUAN LIU,                                    No. 14-70206
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A087-827-143
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 15, 2016**
    Before:        GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Mingyuan Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
    removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). We
    deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Lui’s motion to
    reopen based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel, where he
    filed the motion more than a year after his final order of removal, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b), and failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel to warrant
    equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 679-80
     (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).
    In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lui’s remaining contentions
    concerning prejudice.
    Lui’s motion to supplement the record is denied.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    14-70206
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-70206

Citation Numbers: 643 F. App'x 631

Judges: Goodwin, Leavy, Christen

Filed Date: 3/22/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024