Case Name: Oscar Noel Menjivar GUARDADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 360 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 07-72642
Parties: Oscar Noel Menjivar GUARDADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Oscar Noel Menjivar GUARDADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72642.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Leonor Perretta, Perretta Law Office, West Jordan, UT, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kelly J. Walls, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Oscar Noel Menjivar Guardado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Menjivar Guardado's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than 3 years after the BIA's June 30, 2003, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Menjivar Guardado failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
In light of this disposition, we do not consider Menjivar Guardado'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.