DEWAND CHAND, AKA Dewan Puri v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEWAND CHAND, AKA Dewan Puri,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70835
Agency No. A038-634-403
MEMORANDUM*
DEWAND CHAND, AKA Dewand Chand
AKA Dewan Puri,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73242
Agency No. A038-634-403
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
JUN 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted June 1, 2015 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Dewand Puri,1 a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen and denial of his
motion to reconsider. We review the BIA’s denial of these motions for abuse of
discretion, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
deny in part and dismiss in part.
1. Puri argues that the BIA erred in deciding not to toll the filing
deadline for his motion to reopen. Whether or not the filing deadline should have
been equitably tolled is a mixed question of law and fact. Ghahremani v.
Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007). As a result, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
1 Sometime between 1995 and 1997, the petitioner started to go by the
name Dewand Puri. However, he was convicted for his crimes under the name
Dewand Chand.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Puri’s motion
to reopen.2 Id.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Puri’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed almost five years after the date on which the BIA
rendered its decision dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and Puri failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for
equitable tolling. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
2. On his motion to reconsider, Puri has not presented any argument in
his briefs in support of this petition for review. Because the failure to file an
opening brief (addressing the merits of the petition) is tantamount to failure to
prosecute an appeal, this petition for review will be dismissed. See Ninth Cir. R.
42-1.
In No. 11-70835, the petition for review is DENIED.
In No. 11-73242, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
2 The recent Supreme Court case, Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 2015 WL
2473335 (U.S. June 15, 2015), does not affect this case because we conclude that
we have jurisdiction over this petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the motion
to reopen.
3

-- 3 of 3 --