Dewand Chand v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Dewand Puri, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen and denial of his motion to reconsider. We review the BIA’s denial of these motions for abuse of discretion, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part.

1. Puri argues that the BIA erred in deciding not to toll the filing deadline for his motion to reopen. Whether or not the filing deadline should have been equitably tolled is a mixed question of law and fact. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998-99 (9th Cir.2007). As a result, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D), we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Puri’s motion to reopen. Id.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Puri’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed almost five years after the date on which the BIA rendered its decision dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Puri failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).

2. On his motion to reconsider, Puri…