Mykhaylo TRETYAK, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: August 10, 2020
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Andrei Romanenko, Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Mykhaylo Tretyak, a native of the U.S.S.R. and citizen of Ukraine, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider and review de novo questions of law. Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tretyak's untimely motion for failure to demonstrate he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)-(7); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (due diligence depends on when a reasonable person would suspect the attorney's misconduct and whether the petitioner took reasonable steps to investigate prior counsel's suspected error, or, if petitioner was ignorant of counsel's shortcomings, made reasonable efforts to pursue relief).
Tretyak has not established that the BIA overlooked any contentions. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.