Jose Carrillo-Rivera v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 508 F. App'x 656 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 14 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSE DANIEL CARRILLO-RIVERA,                      No. 12-70339
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A070-171-349
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 11, 2013 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Daniel Carrillo-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on
    ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    *
    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).
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder,
    
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carrillo-Rivera’s motion to
    reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after his
    removal order became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Carrillo-Rivera failed
    to establish grounds for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 
    646 F.3d at 678-80
     (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes he was
    prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
    diligence in discovering such circumstances).
    Contrary to Carrillo-Rivera’s contention, the BIA did not engage in
    impermissible fact-finding where it applied the law to undisputed facts. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (d)(3)(ii).
    In light of our disposition, we need not reach Carillo-Rivera’s remaining
    contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     12-70339
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-70339

Citation Numbers: 508 F. App'x 656

Filed Date: 2/14/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023