22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T439,MEMORANDUM Miguel Castro-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria, v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Castro-Gomez’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Castro-Gomez did not establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 ; see also Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050 , 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (statements in motions are not evidence and are therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T466,

MEMORANDUM

Miguel Castro-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria, v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Castro-Gomez’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Castro-Gomez did not establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 ; see also Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050 , 1054 n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (statements in motions are not evidence and are therefore not entitled to evidentiary weight).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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