Case Name: QIQUAN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-18
Citations: 550 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 12-72147
Parties: QIQUAN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 408–408

Head Matter:
QIQUAN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
Oleh Roman Tustaniwsky, Esquire, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Qiquan Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Li's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over six years after the date of his order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Li 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 establishes deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In his opening brief, Li fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge regarding lack of notice of his hearing. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.