
    Guillermo AYALA-PEREZ, aka Guillermo Perez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72762
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
    Song Park, OIL, 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: LEAYY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Ayala-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 15 years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Ayala-Perez failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Ayala-Perez’s contention that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening for lack of due diligence does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ayala-Perez’s contentions regarding due process violations at his underlying 1999 removal proceedings because this petition is not timely as to the IJ’s 1999 decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     