Adriana Escalante-Recinos v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIANA ESCALANTE-RECINOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70907
Agency No. A071-951-070
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Adriana Escalante-Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen deportation proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70907
denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escalante-Recinos’s
untimely motion to reopen for failure to demonstrate she acted with the due
diligence required for equitable tolling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Singh v.
Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To qualify for equitable tolling on
account of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate . . . due
diligence in discovering counsel’s fraud or error . . . .”); Avagyan v. Holder, 646
F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors relevant to the diligence inquiry).
In light of this disposition, we do not address Escalante-Recinos’s
contentions regarding prejudice and that the BIA incorrectly applied Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --