
    Rene MANZANARES SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 4, 2010.
    
    Filed May 6, 2010.
    Rene Manzanares Salvador, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rene Manzanares Salvador, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Manzanares Salvador’s motion to reopen, because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s January 31, 2005, order dismissing his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (motions to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the administrative decision), and Manzanares Salvador failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

To the extent Manzanares Salvador challenges the BIA’s January 31, 2005, order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     