Case Name: Ashot GALSTYAN; Emma Galstyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-02
Citations: 344 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 06-74961
Parties: Ashot GALSTYAN; Emma Galstyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 344
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
Ashot GALSTYAN; Emma Galstyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74961.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 20, 2009.
Filed Sept. 2, 2009.
Tim R. Everett, Esq., Law Offices of Tim R. Everett, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, 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: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ashot Galstyan and Emma Galstyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reconsider. The motion failed to specify an error of fact or law with respect to the BIA's dis-positive determination that petitioners' motion to reopen was untimely and that they failed to establish they were entitled to equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (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.