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:T4da,MEMORANDUM Celia Elicinia Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation 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. Hold er, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrientos’ motion to reopen as untimely, where Barrientos filed the motion over sixteen years after her final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), and she has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrientos’ remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T50c,

MEMORANDUM

Celia Elicinia Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation 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. Hold er, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrientos’ motion to reopen as untimely, where Barrientos filed the motion over sixteen years after her final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1), and she has not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrientos’ remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.