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:T432,MEMORANDUM ** Javahir Sargsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Sargsyan’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed nearly two years after the BIA’s January 7, 2004 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Sargsyan failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 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 provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T44d,

MEMORANDUM **

Javahir Sargsyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Sargsyan’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed nearly two years after the BIA’s January 7, 2004 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Sargsyan failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 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 provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.