FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN LOPEZ-ORTIZ, No. 13-73619
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-003-198
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Juan Lopez-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny
the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez-Ortiz’s May 7,
2012, motion to reopen as number-barred, where he had previously filed a motion
to reopen and rescind, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (an alien may file only one
motion to reopen and rescind), and Lopez-Ortiz failed to establish the due
diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the numerical limitation, see
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling of
numerical limits is available to a petitioner who is prevented from properly filing
due to deception, fraud, or error, and who exercises due diligence in discovering
such circumstances).
Contrary to Lopez-Ortiz’s contention, the BIA sufficiently articulated its
reasons for dismissing his appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Lopez-Ortiz’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73619