Case Name: Gil Evangelista SADORRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-23
Citations: 367 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 08-72282
Parties: Gil Evangelista SADORRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 790–791

Head Matter:
Gil Evangelista SADORRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72282.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
Gregory John Olive, Esquire, Gregory J. Olive, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, David Schor, Trial, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-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: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Gil Evangelista Sadorra, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for re view of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 Sadorra's motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the IJ's final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Sadorra did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. It follows that the denial of Sadorra's motion to reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
Sadorra's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.