Case Name: MINGYUAN LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 643 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 14-70206
Parties: MINGYUAN LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
MINGYUAN LIU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70206.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 22, 2016.
Eva Leandrá Carrasco, Esquire, Hanlon Law Group, A Professional Law Corporation, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mingyuan Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Lui's motion to reopen based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel, where he filed the motion more than a year after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b), and failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (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 as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lui's remaining contentions concerning prejudice.
Lui's motion to supplement the record is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.