Court Opinion

ID: 9865561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:00:41.986402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:36.821696
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMED ABDULKADIR                              No. 22-2003
MOHAMED,                                        Agency No.
                                                A071-714-251
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Mohamed Abdulkadir Mohamed, a native and citizen of Somalia, 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.

      *
             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). Mohamed’s request for oral
argument is denied.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for

review.

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

reopen as untimely, where it was filed over sixteen months after the final removal

order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within

ninety days of final removal order), and petitioner has not established that

equitable tolling of the filing deadline is warranted, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646

F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (deadline may be equitably tolled when petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, and petitioner acts with

due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate

issues. The supplemented motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        2                                      22-2003