Jose Alexander Ortiz Urrutia v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 4th Cir. 2000 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jose Alexander Ortiz…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1662
JOSE ALEXANDER ORTIZ URRUTIA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A41-712-565)
Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, MARKS & KATZ, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*We find that Urrutia has failed to demonstrate sufficient
grounds to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. See Harris v.
Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jose Alexander Ortiz Urrutia, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have
reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the
ground that it was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
(2005) (establishing a ninety-day time limitation for filing a
motion to reopen); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)
(setting forth standard of review). *
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --