Josue Daniel Munoz v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSUE DANIEL MUNOZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70489
Agency No. A072-536-383
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Josue Daniel Munoz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-70489 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, and de novo questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Munoz’ motion to reopen as
untimely because the evidence submitted with the motion failed to establish Munoz
acted with the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the 90-day filing
deadline. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable
tolling is available to petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception,
fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --