Blanca Rosa Villatoro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BLANCA ROSA VILLATORO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74780
Agency No. A092-631-298
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Blanca Rosa Villatoro, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen exclusion proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74780 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de
novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Villatoro’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed more than eleven years after the BIA’s January 3,
1996, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Villatoro failed to demonstrate either that a regulatory exception to the filing
deadline applied, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3), or that she acted with the due diligence
required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling
available where “petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or
error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).
We lack jurisdiction to review Villatoro’s contention under Matter of N-B-,
22 I. & N. Dec. 590 (BIA 1999), because she failed to raise it before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Villatoro’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --