Victor Manuel Guardado- Rodriguez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VICTOR MANUEL GUARDADO-
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71907
Agency No. A097-361-112
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Guardado-Rodriguez, 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 and changed circumstances in Mexico. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 11-71907
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s
motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed five months after the
BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed
within 90 days of final order), and Guardado-Rodriguez failed to show the due
diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646
F.3d at 680-81 (petitioner “[a]pparently . . . took no affirmative steps to
investigate” whether prior counsel adequately prepared claim); Singh v. Gonzales,
491 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir 2007) (no evidence in record of any actions taken,
after becoming suspicious of the fraud, until meeting with present counsel). Nor
did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where Guardado-Rodriguez failed to establish material
evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will

-- 2 of 3 --

3 11-71907
be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by
affidavits or other evidentiary material.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --