Charley Zacharia v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

AUG 19 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLEY ZACHARIA, ) No. 10-72739 ) Petitioner, ) Agency No. A075-683-010 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM* ) LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney ) General, ) ) Respondent. ) ) CHARLEY ZACHARIA, ) No. 11-72207 ) Petitioner, ) Agency No. A075-683-010 ) v. ) ) LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney ) General, ) ) Respondent. ) )

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted June 6, 2016** Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Charley Zacharia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motions to reopen. See

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. §…

MEMORANDUM **

Charley Zacharia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(1). We deny the petitions.

When Zacharia’s applications for asylum, 1 withholding, 2 and Convention Against Torture 3 relief were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) on April 11, 2001, Zacharia timely appealed that decision to the BIA, 4 .but it affirmed the IJ on September 25, 2002. Zacharia then petitioned for review by this court (“2002 Petition”), but that petition was denied on December 10, 2003.

Zacharia’s first motion to reopen was not filed until July 6, 2010. In that motion, Zacharia asserted that his counsel at the hearings before the IJ (first counsel) was ineffective, and that his counsel on the 2002 Petition (third counsel) was also ineffective. He does not assert that his counsel before the BIA (second counsel) was ineffective. He argues that, even though the first motion was not filed within ninety days 5 after the BIA’s decision, the time to file should have been equitably tolled. 6 The BIA determined that he was not entitled to tolling because he did…

concurring:

I concur in the result.