Alma Gloria Rumualdo- Garcia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALMA GLORIA RUMUALDO-
GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74669
Agency No. A095-568-651
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alma Gloria Rumualdo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74669 2
discretion the 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 as untimely Rumualdo-
Garcia’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than a year after the
BIA’s June 26, 2007, order, and Rumualdo-Garcia failed to meet the requirements
for the exception based on changed country conditions or demonstrate the due
diligence necessary for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii);
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be
equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception,
fraud, or error”).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Rumualdo-Garcia’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --