Jawdeh v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Jawdeh v. Holder

333 F. App'x 199

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 2009

DocketNo. 06-73106

StatusPublished

This text of 333 F. App'x 199 (Jawdeh 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

Jawdeh v. Holder, 333 F. App'x 199 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Waiid Abou Jawdeh and his family, natives and citizens of Lebanon, petition 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, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than nine months after the BIA’s May 12, 2005 order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. See Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. It follows that petitioners did not show a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring error to succeed on a due process claim).

Petitioners’ December 11, 2006 request for judicial notice is deemed voluntarily withdrawn.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Waiid Abou Jawdeh and his family, natives and citizens of Lebanon, petition 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, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than nine months after the BIA’s May 12, 2005 order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. See Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. It follows that petitioners did not show a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring error to succeed on a due process claim).

Petitioners’ December 11, 2006 request for judicial notice is deemed voluntarily withdrawn.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 F. App'x 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jawdeh-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack