Case Name: Suren AVAGYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-20
Citations: 529 F. App'x 859
Docket Number: No. 12-70136
Parties: Suren AVAGYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 859–859

Head Matter:
Suren AVAGYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70136.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
Suren Avagyan, Sherman Oaks, CA, pro se.
Armen Gukasyan, The Law Firm of Ar-men Gukasyan, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Oil, 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: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Suren Avagyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Avagyan's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eight years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Avagyan failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 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).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Avagyan's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.