Case Name: Suren HOVANESYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-26
Citations: 428 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 09-71078
Parties: Suren HOVANESYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
Suren HOVANESYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71078.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 26, 2011.
Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Andrea Gevas, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Suren Hovanesyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Hovanesyan's motion to reopen because it was filed more than three yeai's after the final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Hovanesyan did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
Hovanesyan's request for oral argument is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.