GONZALEZ v. HOLDER, 388 Fed.Appx. 610 (9th Cir. 2010)

Adolfo Limon GONZALEZ; Carmen P. Limon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 08-70909, 08-71016.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted June 29, 2010.[*]
Filed July 19, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Nadeem H. Makada, Esquire, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Stefanie N. Hennes, Trial, Oil, Aaron Nelson, Trial, 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 Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A075-301-464, A070-964-203.

Before: ALARCON, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Page 611

In these consolidated petitions for review Carmen P. Limon and Adolfo Limon Conzalez, mother and son and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review the `Hoard of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen 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. Iturribarria v. INS. 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny die petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order of removal. so, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable rolling, see Iturribarria., 321 F.3d at S97 (equitable tolling available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances. We therefore do not reach petitioners contentions related to their former counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. v. HOLDER

jdjungle