Cesar Agusto Archila- Casasola 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RA/Research 07-70217
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR AGUSTO ARCHILA-
CASASOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70217
Agency No. A029-251-402
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Agusto Archila-Casasola, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings based on
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 07-70217 2
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims
of due process violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in
immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Archila-Casasola’s
motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over two years after the IJ’s
order, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Archila-Casasola failed to demonstrate due
diligence, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable
tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes deception, fraud or error, and
exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Archila-Casasola failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter
of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and the face of the record does
not show a “clear and obvious case of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 526 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --