Miguel Antonio Puente- Aguirre 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIGUEL ANTONIO PUENTE-
AGUIRRE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73482
Agency No. A070-952-249
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Antonio Puente-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
FILED
AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73482 2
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Puente-Aguirre’s motion
to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost thirteen years after the
agency’s final decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). Puente-Aguirre failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007), and failed to present
sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Peru to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
We do not consider Puente-Aguirre’s contentions regarding the IJ’s
violation of his due process rights, or other remaining contentions, because the
untimeliness determination is dispositive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --