Case Name: Edwin Giovanni Rivas BOLVITO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-29
Citations: 425 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 09-70555
Parties: Edwin Giovanni Rivas BOLVITO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 425
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
Edwin Giovanni Rivas BOLVITO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70555.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 29, 2011.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
James Eugene Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Edwin Giovanni Rivas Bolvito, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly construed Bolvito's October 10, 2008, filing as a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir.2005). The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Bolvito's third motion to reopen as untimely because he filed the motion more than nine years after his removal order was entered, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (motion to reopen must be filed within 180 days of removal order entered in absentia), and Bolvito failed to show that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (a petitioner may obtain equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel as long as he "act[ed] with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.