Luisa Xia Choquip v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUISA XIA CHOQUIP,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71762
Agency No. A070-953-465
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Luisa Xia Choquip, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming the decision of
an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion an IJ’s denial of a
FILED
JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-71762 2
motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Xia Choquip’s motion to
reopen as untimely because Xia Choquip filed her motion to reopen approximately
thirteen years after issuance of the final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1003.23(b)(1), 1241.1(f), she failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary
to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679,
and the developments in U.S. asylum law that she identifies do not constitute a
material change in conditions in Guatemala that would qualify for an exception to
the filing deadline, see Aznor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).
The court lacks jurisdiction to review Xia Choquip’s contention that mental
trauma prevented her from asserting her asylum claim earlier, because she failed to
exhaust this issue before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080
(9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an
alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --