Abdol Soltanpour v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 549 F. App'x 683 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABDOL REZA SOLTANPOUR, a.k.a. No. 12-70855
Afshin Soltanpour,
Agency No. A075-523-897
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Abdol Reza Soltanpour, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Soltanpour’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after his
removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Soltanpour failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Soltanpour’s contentions
regarding prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
We lack jurisdiction to review Soltanpour’s challenge to the underlying
orders denying his applications for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture because the petition for review is
not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-70855