Case ID: f-appx_553/html/0712-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alice P. GULLEY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72873.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2014.
    Ben Loveman, Esquire, Reeves & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, Matthew B. George, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alice P. Gulley, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 Gulley’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than nine years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gulley failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Because the timeliness issue is disposi-tive, we need not reach Gulley’s remaining contention.

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