
    Jose Mauricio SALAZAR-CARRANZA, aka Joe Salazar, Jr., Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71274.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2010.
    
    Filed March 29, 2011.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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 Mauricio Salazar-Carranza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely filed, his motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Salazar-Carranza alleges that the untimeliness of his motion to reopen was excused by equitable tolling, and that he was improperly placed in removal proceedings.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salazar-Carranza’s motion to reopen as untimely filed, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioner failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturri-barria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). In any event, we lack jurisdiction to review Salazar-Carranza’s equitable tolling claim because he did not raise this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). To the extent that petitioner challenges the BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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.
     