Alvarenga-Velasquez v. Holder ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JAN 11 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EDNA MARIBEL ALVARENGA-                           No. 07-73357
    VELASQUEZ,
    Agency No. A070-956-179
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Edna Maribel Alvarenga-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
    petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
    her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on ineffective assistance of
    *
    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).
    1
    counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvargena-Velasquez’s
    motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 10 years after the
    BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Alvargena-Velasquez failed to
    establish that she exercised due diligence required to warrant tolling of the filing
    deadline. See 
    id. at 897
    (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who
    establishes deception, fraud, or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering
    such circumstances), see also Singh v. Gonzales, 
    491 F.3d 1090
    , 1095-96 (9th Cir.
    2007).
    To the extent Alvargena-Velasquez contends that the BIA failed to consider
    some or all of the evidence she submitted with the motion to reopen, she has not
    overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Ranco-Rosendo
    v. Gonzalez, 
    454 F.3d 965
    , 966 (9th Cir. 2006).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    RA/Research                                2                              07-73357
    RA/Research   3   07-73357
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-73357

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Fisher

Filed Date: 1/11/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024