Angel Flores-Flores 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 FLORES-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70741
Agency No. A073-129-054
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Angel Flores-Flores, 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
JUL 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70741 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 Flores-Flores’ motion to
reopen as untimely where Flores-Flores filed the motion more than 11 years after
his deportation order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1) (motion to reopen
based on exceptional circumstances must be filed within 180 days of the
deportation order), and failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence
required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling
available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or
error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); cf.
Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (due diligence shown
where petitioner demonstrated “steadfast pursuit” of his case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --