Yovana Vianey Nolasco- Villacre 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YOVANA VIANEY NOLASCO-
VILLACRE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72209
Agency No. A029-561-192
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Yovana Vianey Nolasco-Villacre, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72209 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Nolasco-Villacre’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed over ten years
after her order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to
reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and
Nolasco-Villacre failed to establish that she qualified for equitable tolling of the
filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011)
(equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that she was prevented
from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in
discovering such circumstances); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --