Case Name: HUIYING LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 227 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 06-70245
Parties: HUIYING LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
HUIYING LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70245.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 20, 2007.
Chung N. Phang, Esq., Law Offices of Chung H. Phang, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan K. Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Huiying Li seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we deny the petition for re-view.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Li's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed two years after the IJ's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Li did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.