Case Name: Serafin Lopez HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-21
Citations: 279 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 03-74121
Parties: Serafin Lopez HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 493–493

Head Matter:
Serafin Lopez HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74121.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 20, 2008.
Filed May 21, 2008.
Serafín Lopez Hernandez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Serafín Lopez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Hernandez's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eleven months after the BIA's final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative decision).
Contrary to Lopez Hernandez's contention, the BIA considered and rejected his equitable tolling claim in denying the motion as untimely.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.