Yovana Nolasco-Villacre v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 508 F. App'x 641 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FEB 14 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    YOVANA VIANEY NOLASCO-                            No. 11-72209
    VILLACRE,
    Agency No. A029-561-192
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 11, 2013 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    Yovana Vianey Nolasco-Villacre, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
    reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
    a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v.
    Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    , 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
    Nolasco-Villacre’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over ten years
    after her order of removal became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2) (motion to
    reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and
    Nolasco-Villacre failed to establish that she qualified for equitable tolling of the
    filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that she was prevented
    from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in
    discovering such circumstances); see also Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th
    Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     11-72209
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-72209

Citation Numbers: 508 F. App'x 641

Judges: Fernandez, Tashima, Wardlaw

Filed Date: 2/14/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024