Case Name: Marco DURAN-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-19
Citations: 362 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 07-73458
Parties: Marco DURAN-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 726–726

Head Matter:
Marco DURAN-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73458.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
Marco Duran-Ramirez, Fontana, CA, pro se.
Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, 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
Marco Duran-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 BIA acted within its discretion in denying Duran-Ramirez's motion to reopen as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA's final decision on his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Duran-Ramirez failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.