Court Opinion

ID: 4857907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-25 20:00:39.412623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:31.505613
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 25 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZAIYU ZHANG,                                    No.    20-70795

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A088-291-609

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Zaiyu Zhang, a native and citizen of China, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhang’s untimely motion to

reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where he failed to demonstrate

he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To

qualify for equitable tolling on account of ineffective assistance of counsel, a

petitioner must demonstrate . . . due diligence in discovering counsel’s fraud or

error . . . .”); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors

relevant to the due diligence inquiry).

      We do not consider newly raised assertions of fact in the opening brief that

were not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-

64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           2                                    20-70795