Bertha Sonia Castillon- Camposano v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERTHA SONIA CASTILLON-
CAMPOSANO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72476
Agency No. A072-810-969
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Bertha Sonia Castillon-Camposano, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72476
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Castillon-Camposano’s motion to reopen as untimely and in declining to equitably
toll the filing deadline for failure to show due diligence. The motion was filed
more than three years after her final administrative order, and Castillon-
Camposano did not sufficiently explain in her motion why she did not pursue her
ineffective assistance of counsel claim within 90 days of that order. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2; Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling
of the filing deadline is available to aliens who act with due diligence in
discovering the deception, fraud, or error that prevented timely filing); Padilla-
Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-
process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and
prejudice.”).
Because the timeliness determination is dispositive, we do not address
Castillon-Camposano’s contentions regarding the merits of her ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --