Avakyants v. Holder
Avakyants v. Holder
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avakyants’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Avakyants failed to establish that he acted with due diligence to warrant tolling of the ninety-day deadline for such motions, see Iturribar-ria, 321 F.3d at 899. In light of our disposition, we do not reach the issue of prejudice.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.