Maria Paredes-Ortega v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA LEONOR PAREDES-ORTEGA, No. 09-72923
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-298-293
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Leonor Paredes-Ortega, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation
proceedings conducted in absentia. 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, Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Paredes-Ortega’s motion
to reopen. Contrary to Paredes-Ortega’s contention, she received proper notice of
her deportation hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (repealed 1996); see also
Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (notice to counsel
sufficient). The motion was therefore untimely because Paredes-Ortega filed it
more than 12 years after the May 16, 1996, deportation order, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252b(c)(3) (repealed 1996), and Paredes-Ortega failed to demonstrate that she
acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing
because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72923