Case Name: Franklin Manrique Cortez CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 633 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 14-70111
Parties: Franklin Manrique Cortez CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
Franklin Manrique Cortez CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70111.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed March 2, 2016.
Franklin Manrique Cortez Chavez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Lori Warlick, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, 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
Franklin Manrique Cortez Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order. dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Cortez Chavez's motion to reopen, where it was filed approximately sixteen years after issuance of his final order of removal, and Cortez Chavez does not challenge the agency's determination that he received proper notice of the hearing. • See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). In addition, he failed to establish that he warranted equitable tolling of the filing deadline, where he did not meet the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir.2011), and the alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record, see Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th Cir.2004).
Finally, the agency did not violate due process in denying Cortez Chavez's motion, because he failed to show prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.