NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIELA VERA VASQUEZ and PEDRO PABLO VALENCIA DUARTE ,

Petitioner s ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No s
. 17

- 72873 17

- 72875 Agency No s
. A070

- 924

- 027

A072

- 533

- 684

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition s for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1 1, 2019 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUI A , Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Gabriela Vera Vasquez and Pedro Pablo Valencia Duarte, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeals from an immigration judge’s order s denying their motions to reopen deportation

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 72873

proceedings conducted in absentia

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. M ohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion
to remand. Romero

- Ruiz v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition s for review. The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to

reopen on the basis of lack of notice because the record establishes they were personally served with Orders to Show Cause (“OSC”) and Notice of Hearing,
written in both English and Spanish. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a) (1994). There was no statutory requirement that the OSC s be orally translated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(3) (1994); Khan v. Ashcroft , 374 F.3d 825, 828

- 29 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice proper because the INS ad hered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements). Because the record shows p etitioners were personally served with statutorily sufficient notice, their remaining contentions regarding the ir attorney’s
actions concerning any subsequent notice are unav ailing.
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying petitioners ’ motion s to reopen as untimely, because they filed the motions more than 20 years after the
issuance of their final order s of deportation and failed to show due diligence for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii) ; Avagyan3 17

- 72873

v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) ( factors for determining whether a petitioner showed due diligence i nclu des “ whether petitioner took reasonable steps to investigate the suspected fraud or error, or, if petitioner is ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings, whether petitioner made reasonable efforts to pursue relief ”). We are not persuaded by petitioners’ content ion that the BIA disregarded material
facts. Because the determination regarding equitable tolling is dispositive, we do
not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding exceptional circumstances due to
ineffective assistance of counsel , the application of M atter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 ( BIA 1988) , or public policy

. S ee Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non

- dispositive issues).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion s to remand, because they did not show the additional evidence presented on appeal was new or previously unavailable. See Romero

- Ruiz , 538 F.3d at 1063

- 64.
W e lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ challenge to t he BIA’s decision s

not to sua sponte reopen because they fail to establish any legal or constitutional
errors behind the decision s
. See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying s ua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the4 17

- 72873

decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION S FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.