Case ID: f-appx_305/html/0467-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adrian PICHARDO-CRUZ; Olivia Urbina-Leon, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70650.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2008.
    Adrian Pichardo-Cruz, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Olivia Urbina-Leon, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Christopher McGreal, OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adrian Pichardo-Cruz and Olivia Urbina-Leon, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion as untimely because it was filed more than eighteen months after the BIA’s final order, 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 acted with due diligence).

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