David Ortiz-Rios 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID ORTIZ-RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72800
Agency No. A076-705-250
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
David Ortiz-Rios, 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
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72800 2
of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortiz-Rios’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s April
26, 1999 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ortiz-Rios failed to establish that
he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897 (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from
filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”); cf. Ghahremeni v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (due diligence where
alien made “unbroken efforts” to pursue his case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --