NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-3905 JUAN MANUEL ESPINOZA GUTIERREZ, Agency No. Petitioner, A205-466-816

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 23, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: BERZON, FRIEDLAND, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Juan Manuel Espinoza Gutierrez is a native and citizen of Mexico.

He petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 The Court reviews a denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). “The BIA abuses its discretion

when its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Id. (quoting Avagyan

v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011)).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion to

reopen as untimely. While Petitioner now asserts that equitable tolling applies and

that the BIA failed to properly consider the requirements for equitable tolling,

Petitioner never mentioned equitable tolling or the untimeliness of his motion. The

burden is on the petitioner seeking equitable tolling to demonstrate that tolling is

appropriate. Bent v. Garland, 115 F.4th 934, 941 (9th Cir. 2024). Because

Petitioner “made no attempt to explain how he was prevented from discovering

former counsel’s alleged errors, what efforts he took to investigate the suspected

errors or pursue relief, or how those alleged errors prevented him from filing a

timely motion to reopen,” the BIA’s decision to deny equitable tolling was not

arbitrary or capricious.

PETITION DENIED.

2