Case Name: Dmitri Geets CHAVKEROV, 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: 439 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 10-70525
Parties: Dmitri Geets CHAVKEROV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
Dmitri Geets CHAVKEROV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70525.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 22, 2011.
Patrick Joseph Sandoval, Esquire, Gallagher Sandoval PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Puneet Cheema, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, 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: 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
Dmitri Geets Chavkerov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavkerov's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than eight years after the IJ's March 17, 1999, removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Chavkerov failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline can be equitably tolled "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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.