
    Jorge Alberto GUTIERREZ COLOCHO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74781.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 1, 2010.
    Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Elsa I. Martinez, Esquire, Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kristin Edison, Song E. Park, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Alberto Gutierrez Colocho, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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 acted within its discretion in denying as number barred Gutierrez Colo-cho’s second motion to reopen before the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the numerical limitation on motions to reopen because the record does not support Gutierrez Colocho’s claim that prior counsel either filed Gutierrez Colo-cho’s first motion to reopen pro se, or otherwise provided ineffective legal assistance. See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir.2002) (number bar amenable to equitable tolling).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     