Case Name: Maricela ARCEO-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: 2011-06-28
Citations: 440 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 09-73992
Parties: Maricela ARCEO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Maricela ARCEO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73992.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Susan Elizabeth Hill, Hill, Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Charles S. Greene, Trial, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Maricela Arceo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen. 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, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Arceo-Garcia's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over 13 years after the agency's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), and Arceo-Garcia failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897; Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095-97 (9th Cir.2007).
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.