Mirthala Pinto De Bran 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIRTHALA PINTO DE BRAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70494
Agency No. A070-788-339
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mirthala Pinto De Bran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70494 2
a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Pinto De Bran’s motion
to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ten years after the
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Pinto De Bran failed to
show the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at
679-80.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Pinto De Bran’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --