Case Name: Maria Elena LEYJA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-16
Citations: 497 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 11-72439
Parties: Maria Elena LEYJA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 497
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
Maria Elena LEYJA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72439.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esquire, Law Office of Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Julie Saltman, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Elena Leyja-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 Leyja-Lopez's motion to reopen as untimely where she filed the motion nine years after her final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.