Case Name: Paulino Alzate NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-15
Citations: 471 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 09-73967
Parties: Paulino Alzate NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Paulino Alzate NAVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73967.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 15, 2012.
Patricia Vargas, Patricia Vargas & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, 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, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Paulino Alzate Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Alzate Nava's motion to reopen where he filed the motion seven years after the BIA issued its final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to demonstrate the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
In light of our disposition, we do not address Alzate Nava's remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.