Case Name: Gregorio OSTOLAZA-AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-19
Citations: 538 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 09-72503
Parties: Gregorio OSTOLAZA-AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 744–744

Head Matter:
Gregorio OSTOLAZA-AYALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72503.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Aug. 19, 2013.
Marie Kayal, Immigration Practice Group a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Theodore Charles Hirt, OIL, DOJ-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, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Gregorio Ostolaza-Ayala, a native and citizen of Peru, 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, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ostolaza-Ayala's motion to reopen as untimely where Ostolaza-Ayala filed his motion more than five years after his final order of removal, and he failed to demonstrate that the one-year filing deadline should be waived due to extraordinary circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Ostolaza-Ayala's remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.