
    Miriam Selenne BRISENO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71714.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    R. Alexander Goring, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miriam Selenne Briseno-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Briseno-Garcia’s motion to reopen where she filed the motion over six years after she was ordered deported, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and she did not establish a basis for equitable tolling, see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where, despite due diligence, petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control).

Briseno-Garcia’s contention that the denial of reopening violated her right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim).

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

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