Case ID: f-appx_337/html/0723-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jusak Tory LIE; Anastasia Yovita Shinta Indrayani, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 21, 2009.
    Steven Merrill Sandberg, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, for Petitioners.
    M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office 'of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jusak Tory Lie and Anastasia Yovita Shinta Indrayani, natives and citizens of Indonesia, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than 35 months after the BIA’s March 30, 2005 order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

In light of this disposition, we do not consider petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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