Victor Pedroza-Molina v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR MANUEL PEDROZA- No. 13-70967
MOLINA and ANDREA LUCIANO-
URQUIDES, Agency Nos. A075-669-010
A075-669-011
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Pedroza-Molina and Andrea Luciano-Urquides, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 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). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where they filed the motion more than eight years after their
removal orders became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must
be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and petitioners failed to
establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is
available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due
to deception, fraud or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in
discovering such circumstances). Because the timeliness determination is
dispositive, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70967