Case ID: f-appx_497/html/0762-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Domingo Rogelio AYALA-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71698.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, DOJ-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: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Domingo Rogelio Ayala-Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on 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). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Ortiz’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed the motion twenty years after the March 14, 1990, final order of deportation, and fourteen years after the September 30, 1996, statutory motions deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ayala-Ortiz failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Ava-gyan, 646 F.3d at 679.

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ayala-Ortiz’s contention regarding the BIA’s interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(e). Ayala-Ortiz’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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