Sabino Velasquez-Gonzalez, a.k.a. Sabino Montiel-Velasquez 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SABINO VELASQUEZ-GONZALEZ,
a.k.a. Sabino Montiel-Velasquez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75092
Agency No. A077-343-295
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sabino Velasquez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75092 2
reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process
violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez-Gonzalez’s
motion to reopen because the motion was filed over a year after the BIA’s March
20, 2006, order dismissing his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Velasquez-Gonzalez 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) (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing
because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Velasquez-Gonzalez’s contention that he is
eligible for asylum and his request to withdraw his application for voluntary
departure because he failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We reject Velasquez-Gonzalez’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --