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:T448,MEMORANDUM Hugo Antonio Menendez-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Menendez-Orellana’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed nearly nine years after his final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.23 (b)(1), and Menen-dez-Orellana failed to establish that he was unable, “through no fault of his own and despite due diligence,” to discover the grounds for his motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1184, 1193 . Menendez-Orellana is therefore not entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline. PETITION DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T475,

MEMORANDUM

Hugo Antonio Menendez-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Menendez-Orellana’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed nearly nine years after his final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.23 (b)(1), and Menen-dez-Orellana failed to establish that he was unable, “through no fault of his own and despite due diligence,” to discover the grounds for his motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1184, 1193 . Menendez-Orellana is therefore not entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline.

PETITION DENIED.

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