FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA CELIS, No. 09-72284
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-796-158
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Celis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen her
deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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). Celis’s request for oral
argument is denied.
reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Celis’s motion to reopen
as untimely because the motion was filed more than ten years after the issuance of
the August 27, 1997, in absentia order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and Celis
failed to establish she acted with the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the
180-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)
(equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is prevented from filing due to
deception, fraud, or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such
circumstances). It follows that Celis’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
Celis has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that she
received proper notice of her hearing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72284