Rauf Zayadinovich Gamidov v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUF ZAYADINOVICH GAMIDOV,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74282
Agency No. A075-710-476
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rauf Zayadinovich Gamidov, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
MAR 23 2016
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 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gamidov’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where Gamidov filed the motion nearly six years after his final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he has not demonstrated the
due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is
available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to
deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in
discovering such circumstances).
Because the agency’s due diligence determination is dispositive, we do not
reach Gamidov’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-74282 2

-- 2 of 2 --