Emilia Lopez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EMILIA LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72553
Agency No. A076-349-034
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Emilia Lopez, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-72553
We review for abuse of discretion a 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 Lopez’s motion to reopen as
untimely because she filed the motion to reopen nearly seven years after the BIA’s
March 26, 2002, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lopez failed to establish
that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (equitable
tolling available where, despite due diligence, petitioner is unable to obtain vital
information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond
petitioner’s control).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --