United States v. 2020-05-13 | 18-70206 | JAVIER MALDONADO MARTINEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER MALDONADO MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70206

Agency No. A095-300-405

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Javier Maldonado Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision 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 reopen. Mohammed v.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-70206
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maldonado Martinez’s
motion to reopen as untimely where his motion was filed nearly ten years after the
IJ’s November 26, 2007, in absentia removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and Maldonado Martinez failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant
tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir.
2011) (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).
Maldonado Martinez has not shown a legal or constitutional error behind the
BIA’s decision denying his motion to reopen sua sponte. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840
F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.