Case Name: Aidee Leticia Losoya GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 07-74811
Parties: Aidee Leticia Losoya GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 849–851

Head Matter:
Aidee Leticia Losoya GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74811.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
Peter Singh, Peter Singh & Associates, P.C., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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
Aidee Leticia Losoya Garcia, 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 the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Losoya Garcia's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed ninety-one days after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Losoya Garcia did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Itunibarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when 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 provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.