
    Victor Manuel Huante MAGANA, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70416.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 11, 2013.
    Camiel Leo Becker, Esquire, Becker & Lee, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Julie Saltman, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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 Huante Magana, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huante Magana’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than five years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Ava-gyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Contrary to Huante Ma-gana’s contention, the BIA did not employ an incorrect standard of review. See id. at 679 (explaining that “if petitioner is ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings, whether petitioner made reasonable efforts to pursue relief’ is a consideration when assessing diligence).

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