Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0360-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ali Qasem Saleh ASAAD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71946.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
    Bruce Leichty, Esquire, Law Offices of Bruce Leichty, Clovis, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ali Qasem Saleh Asaad, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Asaad’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed the motion more than two years after the BIA’s March 25, 2005, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Asaad failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897; see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2004).

To the extent Asaad alleges current counsel may have rendered ineffective assistance of counsel that caused Asaad’s lack of diligence, we lack jurisdiction to review that contention. See Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2007).

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