Case Name: Miguel CASTRO-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-22
Citations: 423 F. App'x 715
Docket Number: No. 09-70584
Parties: Miguel CASTRO-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
Miguel CASTRO-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70584.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 22, 2011.
Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Lori Warlick, Trial, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Miguel Castro-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Castro-Gomez's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Castro-Gomez did not establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897; see also Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (statements in motions are not evidence and are therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.