
    Sabino VELASQUEZ-GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Sabino Montiel-Velasquez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 7, 2010.
    Judith L. Wood, Esquire, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood & Jesse A. Moorman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, Oil, Susan Houser, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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

Sabino Velasquez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Velasquez-Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed over a year after the BIA’s March 20, 2006, order dismissing his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Velasquez-Gonzalez failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

We lack jurisdiction to review Velasquez-Gonzalez’s contention that he is eligible for asylum and his request to withdraw his application for voluntary departure because he failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We reject Velasquez-Gonzalez’s remaining contentions.

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.
     