
    Jose AGUILAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72899.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esquire, Law Office of Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Jose Aguilar-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for. review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguilar-Lopez’s motion to reopen as time— and number-barred because the successive motion was filed more than 17 years after the BIA’s March 19, 1991, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (only one motion to reopen permitted and the motion generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later), and Aguilar-Lopez 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”).

Aguilar-Lopez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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