Case Name: Jose ALCARAZ-MENDIAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-01
Citations: 417 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 09-70028
Parties: Jose ALCARAZ-MENDIAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 657–657

Head Matter:
Jose ALCARAZ-MENDIAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70028.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 1, 2011.
James Todd Bennett, El Cerrito, CA, for Petitioner.
Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, OIL, Nicole N. Murley, Emily Anne Rad-ford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, 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
Jose Alcaraz-Mendiaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Alcaraz-Mendiaz's motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to establish that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled where a petitioner acts with due diligence).
Alcaraz-Mendiaz's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.