Vicente Villicana-Mendez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICENTE VILLICANA-MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71154
Agency No. A075-763-560
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Villicana-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JAN 27 2016
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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Villicana-Mendez’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 10 years after the BIA’s final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Villicana-Mendez failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is
available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to
deception, fraud or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in
discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-71154 2

-- 2 of 2 --