Case Name: Adela MORALES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-01
Citations: 328 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 07-72748
Parties: Adela MORALES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
Adela MORALES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72748.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 1, 2009.
Adela Morales-Jimenez, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adela Morales-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Jimenez's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 20 months after the BIA's June 10, 2005 order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Morales-Jimenez failed to establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available where a "petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.