Rajbir S. Cheema v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJBIR S. CHEEMA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73421
Agency No. A205-716-606
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Rajbir S. Cheema, a native and citizen of India, 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
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
* 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).
FILED
JUN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-73421
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Cheema’s
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where he filed the
motion four 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); 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).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Cheema’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a
general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to
the results they reach.”) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --