Case Name: Maria Alejandrina Basurto CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-03
Citations: 649 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 14-71201
Parties: Maria Alejandrina Basurto CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Maria Alejandrina Basurto CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71201.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 26, 2016.
Filed May 3, 2016.
Rock K. Jung, Airene Williamson, Williamson Law Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, Timothy Bo Stanton, OIL, 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: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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 Alejandrina Basurto Camacho, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, 678 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Basurto Camacho's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than nine years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Basurto Camacho 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, as long as petitioner exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Basurto Camacho's contentions regarding prejudice. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.2004) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011) ("No significant changes have occurred since Eki-mian that would allow . us to review sua sponte reopening.").
We deny Basurto Camacho's motion to supplement the record. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
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.