Case Name: Robert Zayco MIJARES; Joelie Ortiz Mijares, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-25
Citations: 81 F. App'x 962
Docket Number: No. 02-71550
Parties: Robert Zayco MIJARES; Joelie Ortiz Mijares, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 962–962

Head Matter:
Robert Zayco MIJARES; Joelie Ortiz Mijares, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 02-71550.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2003.
Decided Nov. 25, 2003.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, Senior Judge.
Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior Judge, , Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The petitioners' motion to reopen was denied twice. We understand but reject their argument for equitable tolling. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) provides that a party may file only one motion to reopen and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after issuance of the final administrative decision. There is no dispute regarding the number of motions filed or the timing of the filing. Instead, petitioners urge us to find a basis for equitable tolling as a matter of law. See Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.1999). The record precludes our doing so. The effort to establish equitable tolling due to ineffective assistance of counsel falls short, even though petitioners met the procedural requirements. See Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir.2000); see also Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637, 639, 1988 WL 235454 (BIA 1988).
The motion to reopen to apply for suspension of deportation was properly denied.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.