MEMORANDUM **

Eugenia Paris, a native and citizen of Romania, 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, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.

*668 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Paris’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the successive motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Paris failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that she suffered from deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Paris’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.