Alfredo Zavala Cabello 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALFREDO ZAVALA CABELLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70555
Agency No. A095-444-286
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.
Alfredo Zavala Cabello, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70555 2
v. 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 petitioner’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed two 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
ninety days of final order of removal), and petitioner 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 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 --