Case ID: f-appx_432/html/0693-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ravindra Prakash SHARMA; Ralesh Prakash Chaube, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71924.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 10, 2011.
    Jagdip Singh Sekhon, Esq., Sekhon & Sekhon, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ravindra Prakash Sharma and Ralesh Prakash Chaube, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. 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 as untimely because the motion was filed more than 2 years after the BIA’s November 12, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of that deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

In light of our disposition, we do not address petitioners’ contentions regarding the merits of them 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.