Mian Mohammad Zulqarnain v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIAN MOHAMMAD ZULQARNAIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70784
Agency No. A044-896-595
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mian Mohammad Zulqarnain, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
MAY 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and review de novo whether
the agency applied a correct legal standard, Kawashima v. Holder, 615 F.3d 1043,
1057 n.8 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Zulqarnain’s
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he filed the
motion more than five years after issuance of his final order of removal, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary
to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679
(ascertaining due diligence based on “whether petitioner made reasonable efforts to
pursue relief”).
The BIA applied the correct legal standard to Zulqarnain’s motion to reopen.
See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that
“the IJ applied the correct legal standard” where “the IJ expressly cited and applied
[relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is all our review requires”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70784 2

-- 2 of 2 --