Angel Armando Ayala 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANGEL ARMANDO AYALA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72400
Agency No. A073-802-672
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Angel Armando Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72400 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala’s motion to reopen
as untimely where he filed the motion more than nine years after his deportation
order was entered, and failed to show that he acted with the due diligence required
to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1) (motion to reopen must be filed within 180 days of
deportation order entered in absentia); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (a petitioner
may obtain equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel as long as
he “act[ed] with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Ayala’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --