Rocio Enriquez 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).
MVD/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROCIO ENRIQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72238
Agency No. A075-301-637
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Rocio Enriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 MVD/Inventory 08-72238
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002), we conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Enriquez’s motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2) (setting forth
90-day period for filing motion to reopen). The Board did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that any ineffective assistance of counsel that occurred over 10 years
ago did not prevent Enriquez from filing a timely motion to reopen. See
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003) (allowing for the
possibility of tolling only if petitioner can establish she acted with due diligence in
discovering deception, fraud or error that prevented her from timely filing motion
to reopen).
The Board did not abuse its discretion denying Enriquez’s motion to reissue
its April 6, 2007, order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of
removal, based on the absence of any flaw in issuing the original order that would
have prevented Enriquez from timely petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that 90-day period for filing
timely petition for review begins when Board mails final deportation order to
correct address, in compliance with its regulations).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 MVD/Inventory 08-72238
To the extent Enriquez challenges the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings
sua sponte, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ekimian v. INS,
303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --