Polanco-Chinchilla v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELY DE LA LUZ POLANCO- Nos. 07-71933
CHINCHILLA, 07-72692
Petitioner, Agency No. A029-135-265
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Aracely De La Luz Polanco-
Chinchilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation
proceedings under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
*
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).
(“NACARA”), and its order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
motions to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Polanco-Chinchilla’s motion
to reopen where her motion was filed more than five years after the September 11,
1998, NACARA deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1), and Polanco-Chinchilla
did not demonstrate she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling,
cf. Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzalez, 410 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Polanco-Chinchilla’s motion
to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272
F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to review Polanco-Chinchilla’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim because she failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Polanco-Chinchilla’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 07-71933