Ana Rosa Villalvazo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANA ROSA VILLALVAZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74319
Agency No. A095-233-602
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ana Rosa Villalvazo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74319 2
a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Villalvazo’s motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more
than three years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and Villalvazo failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the
filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and
exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Because the timeliness issue is dispositive, we need not reach Villalvazo’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --