Case Name: Gloria Mendoza ESPINOZA; 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: 2011-04-12
Citations: 426 F. App'x 552
Docket Number: No. 09-71067
Parties: Gloria Mendoza ESPINOZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 552–553

Head Matter:
Gloria Mendoza ESPINOZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71067.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 12, 2011.
Gloria Mendoza Espinoza, Ontario, CA, pro se.
Edward C. Durant, Juria L. Jones, Trial, 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: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Gloria Mendoza Espinoza and her daughter, 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 821 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' April 21, 2008, motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed almost four years after the BIA's May 27, 2004, final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and petitioners did not establish the due diligence required for 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 discovering the deception, fraud, or error").
Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely, we do not reach petitioners' contentions regarding the underlying merits of the motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.