Joel Espinosa-Lopez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL ESPINOSA-LOPEZ
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71085
Agency No. A099-441-674
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Joel Espinosa-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71085
672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as
untimely, where it was filed nearly five years after the final administrative order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Espinosa-Lopez failed to establish the
due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646
F.3d at 679 (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).
Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not address
Espinosa-Lopez’s contentions regarding new hardship and eligibility for asylum.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --