Maria Estrada Pedroza v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DE JESUS ESTRADA No. 12-74114
PEDROZA,
Agency No. A075-700-979
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria de Jesus Estrada Pedroza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Estrada Pedroza’s motion
to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than 11 years after her removal order
became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Estrada Pedroza failed to
demonstrate 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).
In her opening brief, Estrada Pedroza fails to raise, and therefore has waived,
any challenge to the BIA’s determination that she failed to establish a lack of
notice of her hearing. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011)
(issues not raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Estrada Pedroza’s contention that her case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Estrada Pedroza’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-74114