Case Name: Lixin WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-20
Citations: 604 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 13-72268
Parties: Lixin WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
Lixin WANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72268.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 20, 2015.
Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
James A. Hurley, Oil, Ann M. Welhaf, 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: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, 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
Lixin Wang, a native and citizen of China, 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang's motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than one year after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal), and Wang has not established the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir.2011) (the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with 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.