Case Name: Walid Abou JAWDEH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-09
Citations: 333 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 06-73106
Parties: Walid Abou JAWDEH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
Walid Abou JAWDEH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73106.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed June 9, 2009.
Sanjay Sobti, U.S. Law Center, Corona, CA, for Petitioners.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Waiid Abou Jawdeh and his family, natives and citizens of Lebanon, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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 nine months after the BIA's May 12, 2005 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 order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling. See Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. It follows that petitioners did not show a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring error to succeed on a due process claim).
Petitioners' December 11, 2006 request for judicial notice is deemed voluntarily withdrawn.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.