Rodrigo Valenti Aloise v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGO VALENTI ALOISE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72598
Agency No. A098-800-849
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigo Valenti Aloise, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions pro se 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.
FILED
MAR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72598 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aloise’s motion to reopen as
untimely where it was filed more than two years after his removal order became
final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind an in
absentia removal order based on exceptional circumstances must file the motion
within 180 days after the date of the removal order), and Aloise failed to set forth a
basis for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679
(equitable tolling of the filing deadline is available where petitioner establishes that
he was prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and acted with
due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --