Ramiro Morales v. Loretta E. Lynch , 623 F. App'x 454 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           NOV 25 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RAMIRO EDUARDO MORALES,                          No. 13-70811
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A070-646-807
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted November 18, 2015**
    Before:        TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Ramiro Eduardo Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
    , 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We
    deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales’s motion to reopen
    as untimely where the motion was filed more than 14 years after his removal order
    became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Morales failed to establish the due
    diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see 
    Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679
    (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from
    filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in
    discovering such circumstances).
    In light of our disposition, we do not reach Morales’s remaining contentions
    regarding prejudice and compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19
    I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 538 (9th
    Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make
    findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”
    (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   13-70811
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-70811

Citation Numbers: 623 F. App'x 454

Judges: Tashima, Owens, Friedland

Filed Date: 11/25/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024