Maria Telma Vasquez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIA TELMA VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72549
Agency No. A070-945-695
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Telma Vasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on
the ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72549 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez’s motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after her
removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Vasquez failed to
establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Because the timeliness issue is dispositive, we need not reach Vasquez’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --