Case Name: Veronica Gasga SIERRA; Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 838
Docket Number: No. 07-74375
Parties: Veronica Gasga SIERRA; Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 838–839

Head Matter:
Veronica Gasga SIERRA; Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74375.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
Erin J. Quinn, Law Offices of Erin J. Quinn, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioners.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esquire, Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Veronica Gasga Sierra and Cirilo Antonio Sierra Vasquez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order deny ing them motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners' motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not show that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.