Case Name: Mirthala Pinto DE BRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 485 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 10-70494
Parties: Mirthala Pinto DE BRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 263–263

Head Matter:
Mirthala Pinto DE BRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70494.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
Peter D. De Bruyn, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Theodore Charles Hirt, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Mirthala Pinto De Bran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Pinto De Bran'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. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Pinto De Bran failed to show the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Pinto De Bran'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.