ABDOL SOLTANPOUR V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70855 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABDOL REZA SOLTANPOUR, a.k.a. Afshin Soltanpour, No. 12-70855 Agency No. A075-523-897 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Abdol Reza Soltanpour, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is * 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). governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Soltanpour s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Soltanpour failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (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). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Soltanpour s contentions regarding prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We lack jurisdiction to review Soltanpour s challenge to the underlying orders denying his applications for adjustment of status, asylum, withholding, and protection under the Convention Against Torture because the petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-70855

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.