FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARON DANIELA MENDEZ No. 10-71167
TOLEDO,
Agency No. A070-814-968
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2011 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Sharon Daniela Mendez Toledo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to
reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez Toldeo’s motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than ten years after the IJ’s August 4,
1998, removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), and Mendez Toledo failed
to establish that she lacked notice, see id. at (C)(ii), or establish grounds for
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003).
Mendez Toledo’s contention that personal service of the notice to appear and
hearing notice on her mother was insufficient is not persuasive. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5a(c)(2)(ii) (service of notice to appear “shall be made upon the person with
whom the . . . minor resides”); see also Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150,
1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (immigration regulations “contemplate[] that no minor alien
under age eighteen should be presumed responsible for understanding his rights
and responsibilities in preparing for and appearing at final immigration
proceedings.”).
Mendez Toledo’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71167