
    Carlos Patrocinio PEREZ BARRIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73030.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Matthew B. George, Katherine Ann Smith, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Patrocinio Perez Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez Barrios’s motion to reopen where he filed the motion more than twelve years after entry of his final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. 1008.23(b)(1), and he failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the motion’s deadline, 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 in discovering the deception, fraud or error”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011).

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