Case Name: Maria Cecilia HURTADO-CASTELLANOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 09-71245
Parties: Maria Cecilia HURTADO-CASTELLANOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Maria Cecilia HURTADO-CASTELLANOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71245.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 14, 2011.
Angela Novas McGill, Esquire, The Law Office of Angela Novas McGill, APC, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Matthew B. George, Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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 Cecilia Hurtado-Castellanos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hurtado-Castellanos's motion to reopen as untimely because she filed the motion more than eight years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and she failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
We lack jurisdiction to review Hurtado-Castellanos's contention that the BIA should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen her proceedings. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.