MEMORANDUM **
Adriana Escalante-Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escalante-Recinoss untimely motion to reopen for failure to demonstrate she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To qualify for equitable tolling on account of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate ․ due diligence in discovering counsels fraud or error․”); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors relevant to the diligence inquiry).
In light of this disposition, we do not address Escalante-Recinoss contentions regarding prejudice and that the BIA incorrectly applied Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.