
    Alma Gloria RUMUALDO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74669.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 24, 2012.
    Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah Farber, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alma Gloria Rumualdo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribar ria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Rumualdo-Garcia’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than a year after the BIA’s June 26, 2007, order, and Rumualdo-Gar-cia failed to meet the requirements for the exception based on changed country conditions or demonstrate the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error”).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Rumualdo-Garcia’s remaining contentions.

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.
     