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:T48f,MEMORANDUM Aidee Leticia Losoya Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Losoya Garcia’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed ninety-one days after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Losoya Garcia did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Itunibarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4bc,

MEMORANDUM

Aidee Leticia Losoya Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Losoya Garcia’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed ninety-one days after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Losoya Garcia did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Itunibarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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