Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0797-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hossein Kafshdar GOHARIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71189.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    John M. Levant, Ask Law Group, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-Distriet, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas Fatouros, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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

Hossein Kafshdar Goharian, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Itumbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Goharian’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Goharian failed to establish that he exercised due diligence to warrant tolling of the filing deadline, see Itumbarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes deception, fraud, or error in timely filing, and who exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095-97 (9th Cir.2007).

We lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s April 2007 order because this petition is not timely as to that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

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