Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0593-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIAN LE YOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70408.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 29, 2011.
    Alphan Tsoi, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jian Le You, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribar-ria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying You’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed the motion more than four years after his deportation order was entered, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(l) (motion to reopen must be filed within 180 days of deportation order entered in absentia), and You failed to show that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (a petitioner may obtain equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel as long as he “act[ed] with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.