Deyi Due Chen v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Deyi Due Chen v. Holder

324 F. App'x 661

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2009

DocketNo. 06-70631

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 661 (Deyi Due Chen v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deyi Due Chen v. Holder, 324 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Deyi Due Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribania v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than seven months after the BIA’s November 8, 2004 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Chen failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Deyi Due Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribania v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than seven months after the BIA’s November 8, 2004 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Chen failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F. App'x 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deyi-due-chen-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack