Luis Ruidias-Quelopana 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUIS RUIDIAS-QUELOPANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72515
Agency No. A070-808-892
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.
Luis Ruidias-Quelopana, a native and citizen of Peru, 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
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72515 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de
novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ruidias-Quelopana’s
motion to reopen where he filed the motion nearly thirteen years after he was
ordered deported, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1) (motion to reopen must
be filed within 180 days of in absentia deportation order), and failed to show the
due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available where petitioner
demonstrates due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error that
prevented timely filing). Ruidias-Quelopana’s contention that the agency applied
an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his motion fails because the BIA did not
rely on Matter of Compean, 24 I. & N. Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009), in its order.
In light of the foregoing, Ruidias-Quelopana’s contention that the denial of
reopening violated his right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --