Case ID: f-appx_426/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keiti Salim KAYYAL; Ousameh Salim Kayyal, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 12, 2011.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Elias Z. Shamieh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Virginia Lum, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keiti Salim Kayyal and Ousameh Salim Kayyal, citizens of Jordan, petition for review of the Board 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 the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Kayyals’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eight years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and the Kayyals did not establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturrbarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.