Case Name: Luis Alfredo MATA-FASARDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-28
Citations: 440 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 10-71869
Parties: Luis Alfredo MATA-FASARDO, 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: 570–571

Head Matter:
Luis Alfredo MATA-FASARDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71869.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Mike Singh Sethi, Esquire, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer R. Khouri, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 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
Luis Alfredo Mata-Fasardo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in ab-sentia. 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mata-Fasardo's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 13 years after his 1996 deportation order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Mata-Fasardo did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. It follows that the denial of Mata-Fasardo's motion to reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.