Case Name: Samuel RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-30
Citations: 390 F. App'x 666
Docket Number: No. 08-72489
Parties: Samuel RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 666–667

Head Matter:
Samuel RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72489.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed July 30, 2010.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Gerald Alexander, Eric Warren Marstel-ler, Esquire, OIL, Carol Federighi, Esquire, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Samuel Rodriguez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez Lopez's motion to reopen as untimely because he filed the motion almost eight years after the BIA's January 31, 2000, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rodriguez Lopez failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897; cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez Lopez'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.