Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0477-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mauricio BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 20, 2013.
    Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jessica R.C. Malloy, OIL, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mauricio Beltran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Beltran’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it three years after his 2008 final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish that he qualified for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that he suffered from deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances). The evidence is insufficient to establish diligence between the time Beltran hired his second attorney in 2008 and the time he filed the motion in 2011.

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