Miriam Selenne Briseno- 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIRIAM SELENNE BRISENO-
GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71714
Agency No. A073-952-353
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Miriam Selenne Briseno-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71714 2
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria
v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Briseno-Garcia’s motion
to reopen where she filed the motion over six years after she was ordered deported,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of
final order), and she did not establish a basis 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).
Briseno-Garcia’s contention that the denial of reopening violated her right to
due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Briseno-Garcia’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --