Case Name: Samuel Gallegos HERNANDEZ; Maria Hilda Gallegos, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 415 F. App'x 810
Docket Number: Nos. 08-74363, 09-70217
Parties: Samuel Gallegos HERNANDEZ; Maria Hilda Gallegos, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 810–810

Head Matter:
Samuel Gallegos HERNANDEZ; Maria Hilda Gallegos, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 08-74363, 09-70217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Samuel Gallegos Hernandez, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
Maria Hilda Gallegos, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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
In these consolidated petitions for review, Samuel Gallegos Hernandez and Maria Hilda Gallegos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders denying their motions to reopen and reconsider. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gallegos and Gallegos Hernandez's motion to reopen as time-and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gallegos and Gallegos Hernandez's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision denying reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.