Panuncio Munoz Ortiz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PANUNCIO MUNOZ ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72111
Agency No. A073-809-632
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Panuncio Munoz Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72111 2
a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortiz’s motion to reopen as
untimely where he filed the motion more than four years after his final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90
days of final order), and failed to show the due diligence required for equitable
tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (equitable tolling is
available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or
error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Ortiz’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --