
    Benito DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Dana J. BOENTE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71579
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed FEBRUARY 3, 2017
    William J. Baker, Attorney, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner
    Jennifer A. Singer, OIL, John D. Williams, Esquire, 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: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P, 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Benito Dominguez, 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, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dominguez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed it over twelve years after the final administrative order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he 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 the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Dominguez’s remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of prior counsel, his compliance with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or his eligibility for adjustment of status.

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