Case Name: Onofre CATALAN, a.k.a. Jeff Catalan, a.k.a. Onofre Catalan-Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 516 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 12-71243
Parties: Onofre CATALAN, a.k.a. Jeff Catalan, a.k.a. Onofre Catalan-Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Onofre CATALAN, a.k.a. Jeff Catalan, a.k.a. Onofre Catalan-Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71243.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Onofre Catalan, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
David Nicholas Harling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Onofre Catalan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 motions 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 Catalan's motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where he filed the second motion almost four years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (party may file one motion to reopen and motion must be filed within 90 days of final order), and failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (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 need not reach Catalan'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.