Ma Isabel Ortega-Perez 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).
*** The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MA ISABEL ORTEGA-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73220
Agency No. A075-495-126
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS, District Judge. ***
Ma Isabel Ortega-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal of an
FILED
DEC 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (allowing for judicial review where
motion to reopen contains a constitutional claim or a question of law). We review
the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 491
F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortega-Perez’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than nine years after the
issuance of the September 8, 1998 in absentia order, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Ortega-Perez failed to establish that she acted with the due
diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the 180-day filing deadline, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available
to petitioner who is prevented from filing “because of deception, fraud, or error”
and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --