Eugenia Paris v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENIA PARIS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70892
Agency No. A026-823-395
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
January 20, 2016 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Eugenia Paris, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 26 2016
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 --

denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.
2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Paris’s fourth motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed more than six
years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Paris
failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-80 (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who establishes that she suffered from deception, fraud or error, and
exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Because the BIA’s
timeliness determination is dispositive, the BIA was not required to address Paris’s
contentions regarding her convictions. 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)).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Paris’s contentions regarding her
convictions or compliance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70892 2

-- 2 of 2 --