Angelita Dagsil Agripa 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).
KY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELITA DAGSIL AGRIPA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70141
Agency No. A029-418-871
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.
Angelita Dagsil Agripa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reconsider and reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KY/Research 06-70141 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, and review
de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964
(9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Agripa’s motion as untimely
because the motion was filed almost 10 months after the BIA’s December 21,
2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), (c)(2),
and Agripa failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available where “petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner
acts with due diligence”). It follows that Agripa has not established a due process
violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
succeed on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --