Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0667-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eugenia PARIS, a.k.a. Jenny Paris, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    Jenny Paris, Riverside, CA, pro se.
    Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eugenia Paris, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Paris’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the successive 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 Paris failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that she suffered from deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Paris’s remaining contentions.

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