NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL ALVAREZ NAVARRO and No. 17-72758 NORMA ABRICA SANCHEZ, Agency Nos. A096-061-021 Petitioners, A096-061-022 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Rafael Alvarez Navarro and Norma Abrica Sanchez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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, * 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). Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where they filed the motion nearly eleven years after the filing deadline, and failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where petitioners failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Najmabadi, v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). 2 17-72758 Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to properly analyze their claims. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-72758 17-72758 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Rafael Alvarez Navarro v. Jefferson Sessions, III 31 October 2018 Agency Unpublished fac6444a8244a680ab3dbf9b04c9d210c0789f4f
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals