Case Name: Mayra Eliuth GODOY-FLORES, 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 569
Docket Number: No. 10-71315
Parties: Mayra Eliuth GODOY-FLORES, 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: 569–569

Head Matter:
Mayra Eliuth GODOY-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71315.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Peter D. De Bruyn, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Esquire, OIL, 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
Mayra Eliuth Godoy-Flores, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings held in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Godoy-Flores contends that she failed to receive notice of the hearing at which she was ordered deported. Because this claim was never presented to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Godoy-Flores' motion to reopen because it was filed more than 15 years after the final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Go-doy-Flores did not show that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED, in part; DENIED, in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.