Mario Alfonso-Flores 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO ALFONSO-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73757
Agency No. A029-269-959
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alfonso-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation
proceedings issued in absentia and to allow him to apply for benefits under the
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73757 2
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”),
§§ 201-203, Pub.L. No. 105-100, 111. 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). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Alfonso-Flores’ motion
to reopen on the ground that he failed to show reasonable cause excusing his
failure to attend his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1989). Alfonso-Flores does
not dispute that he received oral notice of his hearing date. See Matter of M-D-, 23
I. & N. Dec. 540, 542 (BIA 2002) (“Prior to 1992, the Act provided only that ‘the
alien shall be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of the nature of
the charges against him and of the time and place at which the proceedings will be
held.’” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1988))).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Alfonso-Flores’
motion to reopen to seek NACARA relief where the motion was over eight years
late, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), and Alfonso-Flores did not demonstrate that
equitable tolling was warranted, see Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1090,

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73757 3
1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2005) (equitable tolling of the NACARA deadline is available
where alien demonstrates he acted with due diligence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --