Case Name: Isabelita Pilac COLINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-02
Citations: 649 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 14-71304
Parties: Isabelita Pilac COLINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Isabelita Pilac COLINA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-71304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 26, 2016.
Filed May 2, 2016.
Rosana Cheung, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Timothy Hayes, Trial, 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: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Isabelita Pilac Colina, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. 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, 678 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Colina's motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than one year after the immigration judge's in absentia removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b)(4)(h), and Colina failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where Colina failed to show sufficient evidence of change to invoke the changed country conditions exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b)(4)(i); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions).
We reject Colina's contention that the agency failed to properly consider the evidence she submitted in support of her changed country conditions claim. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Gir.2010) (reiterating that the BIA "does not have to write an exegesis on every contention" raised by petitioner, so long as it "consider[s] the issues raised, and announce^] its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted." (Citations and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.