Case Name: Victor VELAZQUEZ-NEGRETE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-26
Citations: 632 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 14-71075
Parties: Victor VELAZQUEZ-NEGRETE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Victor VELAZQUEZ-NEGRETE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
Donald Randles, Don Randles Law Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
OIL, Christopher Buchanan, 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: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Victor Velazquez-Negrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 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, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velazquez-Negrete's motion to reopen as untimely where Velazquez-Neg-rete filed the motion more than four years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Because untimeliness is dispositive, we do not reach Velazquez-Negrete's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.