Case Name: Emilia 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: 2010-10-26
Citations: 401 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 09-72553
Parties: Emilia LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 197–197

Head Matter:
Emilia LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72553.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
Nadia Farah, Law Office of Nadia Fa-rah, Tracy, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Channah Farber, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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
Emilia Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v, INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez's motion to reopen as untimely because she filed the motion to reopen nearly seven years after the BIA's March 26, 2002, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lopez failed to establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see SocopGonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en bane) (equitable tolling available where, despite due diligence, petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner's control).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.