Case ID: f-appx_523/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maximino MADRIGAL; Yonira Madrigal-Leon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 13, 2013.
    James Root, Esquire, Law Offices of James E. Root, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maximino Madrigal and Yonira Madrigal-Leon, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than eleven years after their deportation order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

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