Manikam Reddy v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANIKAM REDDY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72465
Agency No. A072-401-325
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Manikam Reddy, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
FEB 24 2014
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 Reddy’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after Reddy’s removal
order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Reddy failed to show 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).
Because the timeliness issue is dispositive, we need not reach Reddy’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-72465 2

-- 2 of 2 --