U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

Ramirez v. Mukasey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 2, 2010 · Fletcher, Reinhardt, Wardlaw

390 F. App'x 706

Counsel

Claudia Ramirez, Ventura, CA, pro se., Stephen Elliott, Esquire, Anna Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Claudia Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after her final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ramirez failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.