Case Name: Maria Merced RESENDIZ DE ROLDAN; 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: 2010-04-14
Citations: 375 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 07-74402
Parties: Maria Merced RESENDIZ DE ROLDAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
Maria Merced RESENDIZ DE ROLDAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74402.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 14, 2010.
Katarina Rost, Law Office of Katarina Rost, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners'.
James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, David Schor, DOJ — 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: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Mai'ia Merced Resendiz De Roldan, Apolonia Roldan-Resendiz, and Mirella Roldan-Resendiz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 motion was filed more than two years after the BIA's June 3, 2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate 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"); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.