Case Name: Daniel Torres BAUTISTA and Yadira Dominguez De Torres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 07-72945
Parties: Daniel Torres BAUTISTA and Yadira Dominguez De Torres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
Daniel Torres BAUTISTA and Yadira Dominguez De Torres, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72945.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 2, 2011.
Filed May 5, 2011.
Daniel Torres Bautista, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
Yadira Dominguez De Torres, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
OIL, Holly Smith, Esquire, Trial, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Daniel Torres Bautista and Yadira Dominguez de Torres, husband and wife and 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 dismiss the petition for review.
The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed out of time. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that the 30-day time limit for filing is mandatory and jurisdictional, and begins to run when the BIA mails its decision to petitioner's counsel of record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.