BENITO DOMINGUEZ V. DANA J. BOENTE, No. 15-71579 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 3 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENITO DOMINGUEZ, No. Petitioner, 15-71579 Agency No. A070-223-487 v. MEMORANDUM* DANA J. BOENTE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Benito Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dominguez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed it over twelve years after the final administrative order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he 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 an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Dominguez’s remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel, his compliance with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or his eligibility for adjustment of status. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71579

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.