Case Name: Celerino VELASCO-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-31
Citations: 344 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 06-73126
Parties: Celerino VELASCO-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
Celerino VELASCO-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73126.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
Celerino Velaseo-Flores, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Celerino Velaseo-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 Velaseo-Flores' motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA's December 16, 2003, order dismissing his appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ve-lasco-Flores failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.