Court Opinion

ID: 176115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-28 22:34:26+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:37.766484
License: Public Domain

FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 28 2010

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFREDO ZAVALA CABELLO,                           No. 08-70555

               Petitioner,                        Agency No. A095-444-286

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted September 13, 2010 **

Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

       Alfredo Zavala Cabello, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 petitioner’s motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed two years after the BIA’s final order of

removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within

ninety days of final order of removal), and petitioner did not show he was entitled

to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)

(deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner

acts with due diligence”).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                    08-70555