Case Name: Celia ROJAS-LUENGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-11
Citations: 269 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 05-74814
Parties: Celia ROJAS-LUENGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
Celia ROJAS-LUENGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74814.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008.
Filed March 11, 2008.
Gary Finn, Law Offices of Gary Finn, Indio, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony C. Payne, Barry J. Pettinato, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Celia Rojas-Luengas, and her children, Adan Ulises Luengas-Rojas and Selene Anaid Luengas-Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico, 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. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final removal order, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007) (limitations period is tolled until a petitioner "definitively learns" of counsel's defectiveness).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.