Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0755-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Alejandro VASQUEZ-TREJO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70434
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed November 3, 2017
    Robert G. Berke, Esquire, Attorney, Berke Law Offices, Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alejandro Vasquez-Trejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Trejo’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Vasquez-Trejo failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Because the due diligence determination is dispositive, we do not reach Vasquez-Trejo’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or the alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies ar.e not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.