Case Name: Eva Martha ROSALES DE VEGA; Conrrado Vega Perez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-30
Citations: 398 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 08-71838
Parties: Eva Martha ROSALES DE VEGA; Conrrado Vega Perez, 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: 398
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Eva Martha ROSALES DE VEGA; Conrrado Vega Perez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71838.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
Jessica S. Bobadilla, Esquire, Law Office of Jessica Smith Bobadilla, Fresno, CA, for Petitioners.
Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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
Eva Martha Rosales De Vega and Conrrado Vega Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen because it was filed more than three years after the BIA's October 1, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they acted 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"); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.