Jose Vasquez-Trejo v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALEJANDRO VASQUEZ-TREJO, No. 16-70434 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-303-898 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jose Alejandro Vasquez-Trejo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan * 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). v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Trejo’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than four years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Vasquez-Trejo 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 an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Because the due diligence determination is dispositive, we do not reach Vasquez-Trejo’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or the alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70434 16-70434 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Vasquez-Trejo v. Jefferson Sessions 3 November 2017 Agency Unpublished c9ff38a6f53da8b9ac5d8f1177f1f354a6887552

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals