Armando Ramirez-Fuentes v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO RAMIREZ-FUENTES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73700
Agency No. A075-618-251
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Armando Ramirez-Fuentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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).
FILED
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-73700
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Fuentes’ motion
to reopen as untimely, where he filed his motion more than 15 years after his final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and failed to show due diligence
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --