Hossein Kafshdar Goharian 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOSSEIN KAFSHDAR GOHARIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71189
Agency No. A075-749-651
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.
Hossein Kafshdar Goharian, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-71189 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Goharian’s motion to reopen
as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Goharian failed to establish that he exercised due
diligence to warrant tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897
(equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes deception, fraud, or
error in timely filing, and who exercised due diligence in discovering such
circumstances); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095-97 (9th Cir.
2007).
We lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s April 2007 order because this petition is
not timely as to that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n.3 (9th
Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --