Claudia Ramirez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDIA RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70411
Agency No. A096-353-003
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70411 2
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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion to reopen
as untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after her final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ramirez failed to establish the due
diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --