Case ID: f-appx_409/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Heidi G. ALDANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74854.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 18, 2011.
    Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lauren Fascett, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Heidi G. Aldana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Aldana’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Aldana did not establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the time limitation, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897. We therefore do not address the merits of the motion.

To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in declining to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

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