Case Name: Jose Luis MARTINEZ-QUINTERO; Maria De Los Angeles Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-09
Citations: 358 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 07-70424
Parties: Jose Luis MARTINEZ-QUINTERO; Maria De Los Angeles Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 903–903

Head Matter:
Jose Luis MARTINEZ-QUINTERO; Maria De Los Angeles Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70424.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.
Vanessa Otero Lefort, Emily Anne Rad-ford, 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: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Martinez-Quintero and his wife, Maria De Los Angeles Martinez-Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over two years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Martinez did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when 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.