
    Victor Manuel GUARDADO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 20, 2013.
    Nikhil M. Shah, I, Esquire, General, Law Offices of Nikhil M. Shah, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
    • Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Jane Tracey Schaffner, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Guardado-Rodríguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed circumstances in Mexico. 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 Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed five months after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and Guardado-Rodríguez failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 680-81 (petitioner “[a]p-parently ... took no affirmative steps to investigate” whether prior counsel adequately prepared claim); Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir.2007) (no evidence in record of any actions taken, after becoming suspicious of the fraud, until meeting with present counsel). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying Guardado-Rodriguez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where Guardado-Rodríguez failed to establish material evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentia-ry material.”).

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