Case Name: Sonia Elizabeth MONTIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-23
Citations: 473 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 10-72547
Parties: Sonia Elizabeth MONTIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
Sonia Elizabeth MONTIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72547.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 23, 2012.
Richard Clay Mendez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, 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: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Sonia Elizabeth Montiel, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montiel's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ten years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Montiel did not establish grounds for equitable tolling where she failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), see Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir.2011).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Montiel's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.