Case Name: Joel RIVERA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 440 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 09-73815
Parties: Joel RIVERA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
Joel RIVERA-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73815.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 22, 2011.
Joel Rivera-Gomez, Montebello, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, John M. Mc-Adams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Joel Rivera-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absen-tia. We have jurisdiction under 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera-Gomez's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the IJ's March 14, 2002, removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), and Rivera-Gomez failed to establish that he lacked notice, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), or establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.