FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELOISA DE LA CRUZ BHAGWANI, No. 08-72883
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-942-155
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Eloisa De La Cruz Bhagwani, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and
*
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).
review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhagwani’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed nearly twelve years after the BIA’s final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed
within ninety days of final order of removal), and Bhagwani did not show she
acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be
equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception,
fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). Bhagwani’s due
process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process challenge).
Bhagwani’s motion to stay her removal is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72883