Case Name: Maria Balicat OLIVEROS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-21
Citations: 444 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 09-71512
Parties: Maria Balicat OLIVEROS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
Maria Balicat OLIVEROS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71512.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 21, 2011.
Lorena Larios Shah, Esquire, Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Reeves & Associates, APLC, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
Susan Bennett Green, Kerry Ann Monaco, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, Dc, Chief Counsel ICE, Office Of The Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Balicat Oliveros and her five daughters, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' September 30, 2008, motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (generally, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and petitioners did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence").
In light of this disposition, petitioners' remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.