NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KHALIL MOUSA HASSAN, No. 13-73685
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-148-437
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015 **
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Khalil Mousa Hassan, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
*
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).
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Hassan’s
motion to reopen based on the alleged ineffective assistance of his prior counsel
where he filed the motion approximately eight years after his final order of
removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). He did not submit evidence sufficient to
demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing
deadline. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (diligence
requires petitioner to take “reasonable steps to investigate [any] suspected fraud”
or make “reasonable efforts to pursue relief”); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889,
899 (9th Cir. 2003) (beginning 90-day limitations period when petitioner became
aware of fraud). Hassan’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien
must show error and prejudice).
To the extent Hassan contends the BIA erred in declining to reopen
proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-73685