MELENDRES v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus and Hilda Melendres, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where they filed the motion more than twelve years after their final administrative order of removal, and they did not show due diligence for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3) (subject to exceptions, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date of the final administrative decision); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Because this determination is dispositive, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding hardship. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.