Case Name: Clyde J. PINTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 371 F. App'x 838
Docket Number: No. 07-74607
Parties: Clyde J. PINTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 838–838

Head Matter:
Clyde J. PINTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74607.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 24, 2010.
Martin J. Lawler, Esquire, Lawler & Lawler, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Clyde J. Pinto, a native and citizen of India, 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Pinto's motion on discretionary grounds without ruling on his claim for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (stating that BIA has the discretion to deny a motion to reopen "even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief."). The BIA articulated the basis of its decision and reasonably concluded that Pinto's presentation of a false birth certificate and incredible testimony outweighed any positive equities in his favor. See Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 983-84.
Pinto's due process claims are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.