Case ID: f-appx_176/html/0811-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harun HARUNI; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70880.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2006.
    
    Decided April 12, 2006.
    Eric G. Bjotvedt, Esq., Law Office of Eric Bjotvedt, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harun Haruni, and his wife and son, natives and citizens of Albania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners filed their motion to reopen over one year after the BIA issued its final order. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to apply equitable tolling in this case because Petitioners did not demonstrate due diligence in pursuing their ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See id. at 897 (holding that equitable tolling applies “during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.