Case Name: Simarjit Kaur BRAR; Khushwinder Brar, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-03
Citations: 339 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 06-75240
Parties: Simarjit Kaur BRAR; Khushwinder Brar, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Simarjit Kaur BRAR; Khushwinder Brar, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75240.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2009.
Filed Aug. 3, 2009.
Vinay R. Chari, Esq., Law Offices of Virender Kumar Goswami, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Simarjit Kaur Brar and Khushwinder Brar, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners' motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than six years after the BIA's July 9, 1999 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that they aeted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts 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.