Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miguel BRAVO-MARTINEZ; Teresa Carrillo-Medina, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72330.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 13, 2011.
    Miguel Bravo-Martinez, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
    Teresa Carrillo-Medina, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief 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

Miguel Bravo-Martinez and Teresa Carrillo-Medina, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, 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 where the motion was filed nearly five years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2), and petitioners failed to show they acted with the due diligence required to obtain equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

In light of our holding, we do not reach petitioners’ contentions concerning the merits of their ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

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