Case Name: Cleofas Vallejo CELIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 848
Docket Number: No. 04-75575; Agency Nos. A75-682-169, A75-682-170
Parties: Cleofas Vallejo CELIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 848–849

Head Matter:
Cleofas Vallejo CELIS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75575.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
Philippe Dwelshauvers, Fresno, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cleofas Vallejo Celis and Maria Marcos Orozco Gonzalez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to reopen was not timely filed, or in rejecting petitioners' request for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. To invoke equitable tolling, petitioners must demonstrate they acted with due diligence. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Here, petitioners made no showing of diligence, failing to explain why they waited at least eight months after retaining current counsel to file their motion to reopen. Cf. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003) (assuming truth of petitioner's assertions concerning his former counsel's deceptive acts, ninety-day limitation period was tolled until petitioner's meeting with new counsel).
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.