NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO ANSELMO MEZA, No. 15-71998
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-310-310
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Anselmo Meza, 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
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
*
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).
of law. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Meza’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where it was filed eight years after his final order of removal, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Meza failed to establish the due diligence required for
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679
(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 the
alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Meza’s contention that the BIA failed to consider facts and evidence
submitted with his motion is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien
must show error and prejudice).
Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not address
Meza’s contentions regarding his 2005 proceedings and his eligibility for relief.
Meza’s duplicative request for a stay of removal is denied as moot, and the
temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until the issuance of the
mandate.
2 15-71998
Meza’s request for an abeyance is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71998