Hugo Antonio Menendez-Orellana v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUGO ANTONIO MENENDEZ-ORELLANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71040
Agency No. A042-485-045
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2014 **
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.***
Hugo Antonio Menendez-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
FILED
FEB 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th
Cir. 2001) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Menendez-Orellana’s
motion to reopen because the motion was filed nearly nine years after his final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Menendez-Orellana failed to
establish that he was unable, “through no fault of his own and despite due
diligence,” to discover the grounds for his motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez, 272
F.3d at 1184, 1193. Menendez-Orellana is therefore not entitled to equitable tolling
of the filing deadline.
PETITION DENIED.
10-71040 2

-- 2 of 2 --