Opinion
No. 09-71251.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 14, 2011.
Richard Flores Lemus, Esquire, Law Offices of Richard F. Lemus, Fullerton, CA, for Petitioners.
Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A075-653-689, A075-653-698.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Antonio Santiago Penaloza and Esmeralda Nunez Benitez Santiago, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to re-open or reissue based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion as untimely where they filed the motion more than seven years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Itnrribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach petitioners' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.