Case Name: Farah DEEBA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-24
Citations: 297 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 05-74238
Parties: Farah DEEBA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Farah DEEBA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74238.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
Filed Oct. 24, 2008.
Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before LEAVY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Farah Deeba and her children, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA's June 11, 2002 final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal), and petitioners did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.