Case Name: Jorge Flores CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-16
Citations: 538 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 12-70884
Parties: Jorge Flores CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
Jorge Flores CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70884.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
Mariela Elizabeth Camisassa, International Legal Alliance Group, North Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Jorge Flores Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of 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, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores Cruz's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly twelve years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Flores Cruz failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Ava-gyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Contrary to Flores Cruz's contention, the BIA did not create a per se rule when finding he failed to show the requisite due diligence. See id. (assessing the exercise of due diligence includes "ascertain[ing] . if petitioner is ignorant of counsel's shortcomings, whether petitioner made reasonable efforts to pursue relief').
In light of our determination, we do not reach Flores Cruz's contention regarding the absence of a complete record from the 1998 proceedings.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.