
    Joel ESPINOSA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71085
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Keith Robert Ayers, Telleria, Levy & Ayers, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel Espinosa-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed nearly five years after the final administrative order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Espinosa-Lopez failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (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 petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not address Espinosa-Lopez’s contentions regarding new hardship and eligibility for asylum.

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