Jose De Jesus Baeza Preciado 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DE JESUS BAEZA PRECIADO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73885
Agency No. A074-810-468
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose de Jesus Baeza Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 07-73885 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Baeza’s motion to reopen as
untimely because it was filed eight months after the BIA’s final order of removal,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety
days of final order of removal), and Baeza did not show he was entitled to
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to
reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of
deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence.”); see
also Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, alien must demonstrate prejudice).
In light of our conclusion, we need not reach Baeza’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --