# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60833 Summary Calendar

**Jose Alfredo Tovar Zamarron,**

Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A095 531 693

Before **Wiener, Dennis,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Jose Alfredo Tovar Zamarron , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA held that the motion was number and time barred b ecause this was

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 11, 2022 Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 20-60833 Document: 00516235812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2022No. 20

- 60833

2 Tovar Zamarron’s second motion to reopen and was filed several years after the entry of his final order of removal

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i)

. Because it determined that Tovar Zama r ron did not pursue his rights diligently, it held that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. See Lugo

Resendez v. Lynch , 831 F.3d 337 , 344 (5th Cir. 2016)

. A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard.” Ramos

- Portillo v. Barr , 919 F.3d 9 55, 958 (5th Cir. 2019). Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the movant bears a heavy burden. Gonzalez

- Cantu v. Sessions , 866 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2017)

. In Flores

- Moreno v. Barr , 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1238 (2 021), this court held under similar circumstances that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence

. Like the petitioner in Flores

- Moreno , Tovar Zamarron filed his second motion to reopen through his current attorney several years after an unnamed attorney told him that he had no recourse. Flores

- Moreno , 971 F.3d

at 543. Tovar Zamarron’s affidavit attached to the motion neither provides dates of when he contacted his current attorney, nor d oes it describe what steps he was taking to pursue his claim betw een speaking to the unnamed attorney and consulting with the nonprofit organization who referred him to his current attorney

. See i d. at 545. Thus, in light of the disfavored status of motio ns to reopen, the “highly deferential abuse

- of

- discretion standard” under which we review them , and our holding in Flores

- Moreno , 971 F.3d at 54 3

- 45 , we hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Tovar Zamarron did not act diligentl y and was thus not entitled to equitable tolling of his motion to
reopen. See Ramos

- Portillo , 919 F.3d at 958 ; Gonzalez

- Cantu , 866 F.3d at 30 5. Accordingly, Tovar Zamarron’s petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 20-60833 Document: 00516235812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2022