Case Name: Manvel HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-31
Citations: 344 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 07-71203
Parties: Manvel HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
Manvel HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71203.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Aug. 31, 2009.
Alexander Morales, Boghosian & Morales, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony P. Nicastro, David V. Bernal, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manvel Hakobyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hakobyan's motion as untimely because the motion was filed more than 33 months after the BIA's October 6, 2003 order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hakobyan failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribcmia, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available where "petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
Hakobyan'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.