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:T4c6,MEMORANDUM Dung Xuong Lam, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lam’s motion to reopen as untimely because Lam filed the motion more than six years after the IJ’s April 15,1999, removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b), and Lam failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or er ror, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 998, 1000 (9th Cir.2007). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f3,

MEMORANDUM

Dung Xuong Lam, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lam’s motion to reopen as untimely because Lam filed the motion more than six years after the IJ’s April 15,1999, removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b), and Lam failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or er ror, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 998, 1000 (9th Cir.2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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