22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ee,MEMORANDUM Maria Telma Vasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), and Vasquez failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Because the timeliness issue is disposi-tive, we need not reach Vasquez’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T520,

MEMORANDUM

Maria Telma Vasquez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than thirteen years after her removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), and Vasquez failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Because the timeliness issue is disposi-tive, we need not reach Vasquez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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