Osama Oraha v. Loretta E. Lynch

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2016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
OSAMA MIKHO ORAHA, No. 14-72123
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-742-979
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.
Osama Mikho Oraha, a native of Iraq and citizen of Canada, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Oraha’s
motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, where he filed
the motion over two years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(1), and he failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary to
warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available when a petitioner has
exercised due or reasonable diligence and tolling period should end . . .when
petitioner definitively learns of the harm resulting from counsel’s deficiency, or
obtains vital information bearing on the existence of his claim (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)).
Because untimeliness is dispositive, we do not reach Oraha’s remaining
contentions regarding eligibility for relief from removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-72123