Miguel Puente-Aguirre v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 475 F. App'x 239 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANTONIO PUENTE- No. 10-73482
AGUIRRE,
Agency No. A070-952-249
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Antonio Puente-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
*
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).
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Puente-Aguirre’s motion
to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost thirteen years after the
agency’s final decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). Puente-Aguirre failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007), and failed to present
sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Peru to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
We do not consider Puente-Aguirre’s contentions regarding the IJ’s
violation of his due process rights, or other remaining contentions, because the
untimeliness determination is dispositive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-73482