Page:Ovalles v. Rosen (17-60438) (2021) Opinion.pdf/6

 Londono-Gonzalez that Lugo-Resendez did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that stood in the way of aliens seeking equitable tolling.

Second, Ovalles argues that Lopez v. Gonzales establishes an extraordinary circumstance. But the extraordinary circumstance must have “stood in his way and prevented timely filing” of his second motion to reopen in March 2017. Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 344. Lopez was decided in 2006. Thus, if Lugo-Resendez doesn’t constitute an extraordinary circumstance (and this court has previously determined that it does not), then Ovalles presents no viable alternative from which he can show compliance with the 90-day filing deadline even with the benefit of equitable tolling.

Based on the foregoing, we DENY the petition for review.