Case Name: Jose Adolfo Lamas RIVERA; Agueda Velazquez De Lamas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 399 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 06-75248
Parties: Jose Adolfo Lamas RIVERA; Agueda Velazquez De Lamas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Jose Adolfo Lamas RIVERA; Agueda Velazquez De Lamas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75248.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
Jose Adolfo Lamas Rivera, Pacoima, CA, pro se.
Agueda Velazquez De Lamas, Pacoima, CA, pro se.
David V. Bernal, Liza Murcia, Anthony Cardozo Payne, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, 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, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Jose Adolfo Lamas Rivera and Agueda Velazquez De Lamas, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative order was entered in their case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were eligible for equitable tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.