NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID CHAVEZ-MACIAS, No. 13-72243
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-827-571
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Chavez-Macias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
deportation 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
*
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).
F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining Chavez-Macias failed to
show the due diligence required to equitably toll the filing deadline for his motion
to reopen, where the motion was filed more than 16 years after the final
administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chavez-Macias offers no
argument or evidence to support a finding of diligence, 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 diligence determination is dispositive, we need not remand in
light of this court’s intervening decision in Hernandez v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1099
(9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72243