Marco Duran-Ramirez 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO DURAN-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73458
Agency No. A077-356-995
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marco Duran-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-73458 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491
F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Duran-Ramirez’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA’s final
decision on his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Duran-Ramirez
failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable
tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --