Yolanda Gonzalez De Araiza 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YOLANDA GONZALEZ DE ARAIZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74762
Agency No. A075-487-636
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Yolanda Gonzalez de Araiza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
SEP 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74762 2
the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See 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 Gonzalez de Araiza’s
motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s
February 19, 2002, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must
generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Gonzalez de Araiza failed
to establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be
equitably tolled “when a 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 Gonzalez de Araiza’s contentions that the
BIA erred in severing her case from her husband’s case and that she did not receive
notice of the dismissal of her prior petition for review because she did not exhaust
those contentions before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before
the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --