Case Name: Jose GOMEZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-02
Citations: 594 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 12-72970
Parties: Jose GOMEZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit'Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 436–436

Head Matter:
Jose GOMEZ-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72970.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed March 2, 2015.
Fabian C. Serrato, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Jose Gomez-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 Gomez-Rivera's motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than six years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and has not established the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-80 (9th Cir.2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Gomez-Rivera's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.