Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0718-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor Manuel PEDROZA-MOLINA and Andrea Luciano-Urquides, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70967.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 26, 2014.
    Fabian C. Serrato, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
    Jane Tracey Schaffner, Oil, 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: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Pedroza-Molina and Andrea Luciano-Urquides, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where they filed the motion more than eight years after their removal orders became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and petitioners failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). Because the timeliness determination is dis-positive, we do not reach 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.