Case Name: Erdenesuren DAGAMJAV, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-09
Citations: 632 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 15-1516
Parties: Erdenesuren DAGAMJAV, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Erdenesuren DAGAMJAV, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-1516.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 9, 2016.
John L. Wheaton, John L. Wheaton, Attorney At Law, PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Timothy G. Hayes, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Erdenesuren Dagamjav, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Dagamjav's appeal of the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen through which Dagamjav sought rescission of a previously entered in absen-tia order of removal. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Dagamjav's motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2015). Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's factual determination, affirmed by the Board, that Dagamjav's prior attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012) ("[Ajdministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary."), such that the 180-day period for filing such a motion to reopen would be equitably tolled, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (2012) (setting forth time limitation for filing a motion to reopen to seek rescission of an in absentia order of removal).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board, See In re: Dagamjav (B.I.A. Mar. 20, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.