Case Name: Gilberto Velasco SANCHEZ; Bertha Arreguin Contreras, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 848
Docket Number: No. 07-70193
Parties: Gilberto Velasco SANCHEZ; Bertha Arreguin Contreras, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
Gilberto Velasco SANCHEZ; Bertha Arreguin Contreras, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70193.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
Jon Wu, Wu Jon Law Corporation, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioners.
Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, OIL, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, 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: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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
Gilberto Velasco Sanchez and Bertha Arreguin Contreras, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying them motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 21 months after the BIA's December 2, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
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.'