NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOISES VELASQUEZ-MEDINA, No. 17-70553
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-892-353
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Moises Velasquez-Medina, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
*
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).
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Velasquez-
Medina’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and new
eligibility for asylum and related relief, where he filed the motion more than three
years after his final administrative order of removal, he did not show due diligence
for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, and he did not show that the motion was
subject to any exceptions to the deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3) (subject
to exceptions, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date
of the final administrative decision); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th
Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from
timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the
petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We reject Velasquez-Medina’s contention that the BIA failed to address his
request for reopening based on new eligibility for asylum and related relief. The
BIA addressed the timeliness of his motion and did not need to address changed
country conditions because this exception was not raised in his brief to the BIA.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the
results they reach).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we do not reach Velasquez-
2 17-70553
Medina’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with the procedural
requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and whether
he was prejudiced by prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. See Simeonov,
371 F.3d at 538.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70553
Moises Velasquez-Medina v. William Barr
Combined Opinion