
    Maria Leonor PAREDES-ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72923.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 26, 2011.
    Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Janice Kay Red-fern, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, 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

Maria Leonor Paredes-Ortega, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. 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), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Paredes-Ortega’s motion to reopen. Contrary to Paredes-Ortega’s contention, she received proper notice of her deportation hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (repealed 1996); see also Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (notice to counsel sufficient). The motion was therefore untimely because Paredes-Ortega filed it more than 12 years after the May 16,1996, deportation order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3) (repealed 1996), and Paredes-Ortega failed to demonstrate that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     