
    Martha RODRIGUEZ MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72138.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, FRancis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Tracey McDonald, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Rodriguez Mejia, 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, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez Mejia’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed nearly two years after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rodriguez Mejia did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error”).

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