Marlene Velasquez Bonilla v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLENE SUYAPA VELASQUEZ No. 11-73900
BONILLA,
Agency No. A095-740-876
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 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Marlene Suyapa Velasquez Bonilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen
*
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).
removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Velasquez
Bonilla’s motion to reopen alleging exceptional circumstances, where it was not
submitted within 180 days of the IJ’s February 2, 2011, order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal
order based on exceptional circumstances must file the motion within 180 days),
and she failed to establish that she qualified for equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 673, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011).
Velasquez Bonilla received proper notice of her removal hearing because
she was personally served a Notice to Appear, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a); see also
Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law
does not require that the Notice to Appear . . . be in any language other than
English.”), and the hearing notice was mailed to the most recent address she
provided, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(c), 1229a(b)(5)(A).
2 11-73900
Velasquez Bonilla’s contention that, in making its decision, the agency
failed to consider all the relevant factors, is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73900