
    Rodrigo Valenti ALOISE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72598.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 19, 2013.
    Rodrigo Valenti Aloise, Chula Vista, CA, pro se.
    OIL, David Schor, 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 PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodrigo Valenti Aloise, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. 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), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aloise’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than two years after his removal order became final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind an in absen-tia removal order based on exceptional circumstances must file the motion within 180 days after the date of the removal order), and Aloise failed to set forth a basis for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling of the filing deadline is available where petitioner establishes that he was prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and acted with due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

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