Silvia Cruz-Herrera 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVIA CRUZ-HERRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71135
Agency No. A075-481-526
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Silvia Cruz-Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-71135 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 Cruz-Herrera’s motion to
reopen as untimely because she filed the motion more than eighteen months after
the BIA issued its final order, and she failed to establish the due diligence required
to warrant tolling of the motions deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Valeriano
v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 674-75 (9th Cir. 2007) (no due diligence shown where
petitioner’s attorney delayed filing in order to await receipt of information
unnecessary for the filing); see also Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193-
94 (9th Cir. 2001) (tolling limitations period until alien able to obtain “vital
information bearing on the existence of a claim”). It follows that the BIA did not
violate due process by denying Cruz-Herrera’s motion to reopen. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --