Case Name: Celia Elicinia BARRIENTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 600
Docket Number: No. 15-70016
Parties: Celia Elicinia BARRIENTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 600–600

Head Matter:
Celia Elicinia BARRIENTOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70016
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Steven Espinoza, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Steven Espinoza, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner
Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Celia Elicinia Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. 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, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrientos' motion to reopen as untimely, where Barrientos filed the motion over sixteen years after her final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and she has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrientos' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.