Case Name: Jaime TORRES; Dilia Margarita Beltran Landeros, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-20
Citations: 322 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 06-75057
Parties: Jaime TORRES; Dilia Margarita Beltran Landeros, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Jaime TORRES; Dilia Margarita Beltran Landeros, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75057.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 20, 2009.
Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Susan Houser, Monica Antoun, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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
Jaime Torres and Dilia Margarita Bel-tran Landeros, spouses and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. 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 the successive motion to reopen was filed more than two years after the BIA's December 10, 2003 order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Petitioners failed to establish grounds 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").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.