Case Name: Ana Estela ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 12-70767
Parties: Ana Estela ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 462–462

Head Matter:
Ana Estela ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70767.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
Reza Athari, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC A Multi-Jurisdictional Firm, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, OIL, 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: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, 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
Ana Estela Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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, 678 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarado's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than seven years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Alvarado 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).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Alvarado's remaining contention regarding compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
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.