Case Name: Elmer Gustavo KISTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-15
Citations: 481 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 10-72745
Parties: Elmer Gustavo KISTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
Elmer Gustavo KISTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
John Wolfgang Gehart, Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, 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: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, 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
Elmer Gustavo Kiste, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. 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, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kiste's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly twelve years after his order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(i) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind an in absen-tia deportation order based on exceptional circumstances must file the motion within 180 days), and Kiste failed to establish that he qualified for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that he suffered from deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.