Case ID: f-appx_438/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nicolas CASTANEDA RODRIGUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70502.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 21, 2011.
    Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Tim Ramnitz, Trial, Julia Tyler, Esquire, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicolas Castaneda Rodriguez, Agustina Alvarado Avila, Martin Castaneda Alvarado, and Maria del Rosario Castaneda Alvarado, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen and reissue. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen and reissue on the ground that it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not demonstrate the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1193 (tolling applies where “despite all due diligence, the party invoking equitable tolling is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim” as a result of circumstances beyond his control) (alterations and citation omitted).

In light of our disposition, we need not address petitioners’ remaining contentions.

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