Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lorenzo FLORES-CERVANTES and Laura Miranda-Adame, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 23, 2012.
    Lorenzo Flores-Cervantes, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Laura Miranda-Adame, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. 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

Lorenzo Flores-Cervantes and Laura Miranda-Adame, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motion to reopen due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ third motion to reopen as time- and number-barred, see 8 U.S.C § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (c)(7)(A), where petitioners failed to explain before the agency how they were prevented from raising their ineffective assistance claims in their first motion to reopen, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits is recognized “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error”).

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