Case Name: Maria Telma VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-01
Citations: 540 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 11-72549
Parties: Maria Telma VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
Maria Telma VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72549.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 01, 2013.
Maria Telma Vasquez, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
OIL, Kohsei Ugumori, 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: 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Telma Vasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on the 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). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Vasquez failed to establish 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 Vasquez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.