Dege

Dege v. Gonzales

Good Law
123 F. App'x 313
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 22, 2005No. 03-74156California236 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Tsige Dege, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under former 8 U.S.C. § 1105 . We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Iturribama v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Dege filed her motion to reopen more than a year after the BIA dismissed her appeal, and well beyond the statutorily required 90 day period. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 895 . Although we have applied equitable tolling in cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel, Dege offers no explanation for why she did not file the motion until over a year after she obtained new counsel. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897, *314 899 (requiring due diligence and concluding limitations period began when petitioner met with new counsel). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Dege’s motion to reopen. See id. at 894 .

Because Dege’s motion to reopen was untimely, we do not reach the merits of her ineffective assistance of counsel…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.