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:T4e9,MEMORANDUM Nelson Celada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen in absen-tia deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Celada’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion over nineteen years after his final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 (c)(2), 1003.23, and he has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as1 the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Celada’s remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T51b,

MEMORANDUM

Nelson Celada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen in absen-tia deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Celada’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion over nineteen years after his final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 (c)(2), 1003.23, and he has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as1 the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Celada’s remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.