
    Miguel Antonio PUENTE-AGUIRRE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2012.
    Fatma Essam Marouf, Marouf Law Group, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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