Ramiro Eduardo Morales v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMIRO EDUARDO MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70811
Agency No. A070-646-807
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Eduardo Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
NOV 25 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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed more than 14 years after his removal order
became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Morales failed to establish the due
diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646
F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from
filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in
discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Morales’s remaining contentions
regarding prejudice and compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19
I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”
(citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70811 2

-- 2 of 2 --