Case Name: Armen MARGARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-21
Citations: 444 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 10-71538
Parties: Armen MARGARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
Armen MARGARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71538.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 21, 2011.
Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sas-soun A. Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Armen Margaryan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Margaryan's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than ten years after the final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and Margar-yan failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline can be equitably tolled "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.