Maria Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 01 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MARIA TELMA VASQUEZ,                              No. 11-72549
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A070-945-695
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 24, 2013 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Maria Telma Vasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
    immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on
    the ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    .
    *
    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).
    We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v.
    Holder, 
    646 F.3d 672
    , 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez’s motion to
    reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after her
    removal order became final, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(1), and Vasquez 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 a petitioner who is
    prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
    diligence in discovering such circumstances).
    Because the timeliness issue is dispositive, we need not reach Vasquez’s
    remaining contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                      11-72549
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-72549

Judges: Rawlinson, Smith, Christen

Filed Date: 10/1/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024