Case Name: Rosario Del Carmen PENA-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 933
Docket Number: No. 06-71660
Parties: Rosario Del Carmen PENA-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 933–934

Head Matter:
Rosario Del Carmen PENA-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71660.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Rosario Del Carmen Pena-Pineda, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Annette Marie Wietecha, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosario Del Carmen Pena-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pena-Pineda's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ninety days after the BIA's July 18, 2005, order dismissing her appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Pena-Pineda failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises 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.