Madatian v. Holder , 368 F. App'x 780 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAR 01 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GAYANE MADATIAN; VAHE                             No. 06-75372
    GHARAGUZIAN; KRISTINE
    MADATIAN,                                         Agency Nos. A073-915-871
    A073-915-872
    Petitioners,                                    A073-915-863
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 16, 2010 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Gayane Madatian, her son Vahe Gharaguzian, and her sister Kristine
    Madatian, citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    RB/Research
    Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings
    based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
    8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
    reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
    petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
    reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 8 years after the BIA’s
    May 23, 1997, order dismissing their appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The
    BIA acted within its discretion in determining that the evidence submitted with the
    motion to reopen failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of
    the motions deadline. See Iturribarria v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 897 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to
    deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such
    circumstances).
    Petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit.
    Petitioners’ motion for extension of time to file the reply brief is granted.
    The clerk shall file the reply brief received on March 4, 2008.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    RB/Research                                 2                                    06-75372
    RB/Research   3   06-75372
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-75372

Citation Numbers: 368 F. App'x 780

Filed Date: 3/1/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023