N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ZHENGTAO ZHENG, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72521 Age n c y No. A075-684-225 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Zhe ngta o Zhe ng, a

native and c itiz e n

of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ orde r sum m arily a ffirm ing thede c i sion of a n im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) de ny ing his motion to re ope n. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to 

# FIL ED D EC 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re ope n . Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The IJ did not a

b use he r disc re tion by

de ny ing a s untim e ly

Zhe ng’ s m otion to re ope n be c a

use Zhe ng file d his m otion to re ope n ne arly 12 y e ars a fte r his in a bse ntia orde r of re m ova l be c am e a dm inistra tive ly fina l , se e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C ); 8 C . F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1), (4), a nd fa ile d to de m onstra

te ina d e quate notic e suc h a s would wa rrant a n e xc e ption to the

filing de a dline whe re he pe rsona lly

re c e i ve d a

n d signe d the notic e to a

ppe ar inform ing him of the tim e , date , a nd pla c e of his sc he dule d re m ova l he aring a nd the c onse que nc e s of fa iling to a ppe ar, s e e K

han v . Ashc roft , 374 F.3d 825, 829 (9th C ir. 2004). Zhe ng a l so fa ile d to de m onstra

te the due dilige nc e ne c e ssa ry to wa rrant e quita

b le tolling of the

filing de a dline ba se d on ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l whe re he m o ve d to re o p e n a pproxim ate l y

12 y e ars a fte r he re a sona bly should ha

v e suspe c t e d his a

ttorne y ’ s fraud. S e e Av agy an , 646 F.3d a

t 680. Zhe ng’ s purporte d prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for a djustm e nt of sta

tus did not re quire the IJ to re ope n his re m ova l proc e e dings in the a bse nc e of a

tim e ly m otion to re ope n. Se e Ek

imian v . IN

S , 303 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [A] m otion to re ope n to c onside r an a pplic ation for a

n a djustm e nt of sta

tus m ust be pre se nte d to the [a g e nc y ] no la

te r tha n nine ty da y s a fte r the issua

nc e of a fina l de c ision by

the 1 2 - 7 2 5 2 1 2[a ge nc y ] .” ). B e c a use Matte r of M-S- , 22 I. & N. De c . 349 (B IA 1998) (e n ba nc ), doe s not a lte r this c onc lusion, the IJ did not err by fa iling to c onside r its a pplic a bility to Zhe ng’ s c a se . Se e M

atte r of M-S- , 22 I. & N. De c . at 357 (holding that a m otion to re ope n se e king only to “ a pply for a form of re lie f whic h wa s una va ila ble to [the m o va

nt] at the tim e of [the ] he aring . . . is subje c t to the re gula tory re quire m e nts” gove rning m otions to re ope n ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 5 2 1 3