¶2 Anjela Sedrak Hakobyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of *865 the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
¶3 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Hakobyan’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 6 years after the issuance of the September 10, 1999, in absentia order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h), and the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen failed to establish Hakobyan acted with the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the 180-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
¶4 Hakobyan’s remaining contentions lack merit.
¶5 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.