Jose Maria Duenas v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARIA DUENAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73449
Agency No. A079-521-732
MEMORANDUM*
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.
Jose Maria Duenas, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v.
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73449 2
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 Duenas’ January 9, 2008,
motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over five 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 90 days of final order of removal), and Duenas 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 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.

-- 2 of 2 --