Victor Manuel Huante Magana v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL HUANTE
MAGANA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70416
Agency No. A096-351-510
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Huante Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
FILED
DEC 11 2013
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 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
motions to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huante Magana’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more
than five years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and he failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the
filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (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). Contrary to Huante Magana’s contention, the BIA did not employ
an incorrect standard of review. See id. at 679 (explaining that “if petitioner is
ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings, whether petitioner made reasonable efforts to
pursue relief” is a consideration when assessing diligence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70416 2

-- 2 of 2 --