Jose Gomez-Rivera v. Eric Holder, Jr.

                                                                           FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAR 02 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


JOSE GOMEZ-RIVERA,                               No. 12-72970

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A091-815-342

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted February 17, 2015**

Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Jose Gomez-Rivera, 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




          *
             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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Rivera’s motion to

reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than six years after his final

order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed

within 90 days of a final order of removal), and has not established the due

diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v.

Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-80 (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).

      In light of our disposition, we do not reach Gomez-Rivera’s remaining

contentions.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           2                                      12-72970