Jose Valencia-Lopez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 VALENCIA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71335
Agency No. A079-580-333
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Valencia-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71335 2
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Valencia-
Lopez’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s
final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Valencia-Lopez did not show
he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v.
Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Valencia-Lopez’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --