Case Name: Marvin Osiel SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-09
Citations: 447 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 10-2921-ag
Parties: Marvin Osiel SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Marvin Osiel SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-2921-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 9, 2012.
James A. Welcome, Law Offices of James A. Welcome, Waterbury, CT, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Marvin Osiel Sandoval, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a June 14, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the May 13, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Michael W. Straus denying his motion to rescind an in absentia order of removal. In re Marvin Osiel Sandoval, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 14, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immigr.Ct.Hartford, CT. May 13, 2009). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
We have reviewed the agency's denial of Sandoval's motion to rescind for abuse of discretion. See Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir.2006). Because Sandoval's motion to rescind based on his claim that his failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances was not filed within 180 days of his removal order, he was required to establish that the time limitation on motions to rescind should be equitably tolled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(5)(C)(i), (c)(7)(C)(iii) (2006); Cekic v. INS, 435 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir.2006). The agency reasonably rejected Sandoval's claim for equitable tolling because he did not present any evidence to establish that he " 'exercised due diligence in pursuing [his] case' " during the period he sought to toll. Cekic, 435 F.3d at 170 (quoting Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2000)). Thus the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval's motion to reopen as untimely.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.