NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAMIZANY DEL ROSARIO ORDONEZ- No. 17-71795
MALDONADO,
Agency No. A095-738-760
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Tamizany Del Rosario Ordonez-Maldonado, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reopen, and review de novo questions of law. 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 Ordonez-Maldonado’s
motion to reopen as untimely, where she filed the motion more than four years
after her final administrative order of removal, and did not show equitable tolling
of the filing deadline was warranted or that the motion was subject to any
exceptions to the deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3) (subject to exceptions, a
motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the
final administrative decision was rendered); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679
(9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from
timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the
petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); Matter of M-
S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-57 (BIA 1998) (a motion to reopen seeking only to
apply for relief unavailable to the movant at the time of the hearing is still subject
to the regulatory requirements governing motions to reopen).
We reject Ordonez-Maldonado’s contention that the BIA did not properly
address her equitable tolling arguments or otherwise insufficiently announced its
decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding
the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
2 17-71795
Ordonez-Maldonado’s related due process contention therefore fails. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice
to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-71795