Mynor Andrade-Ortega v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAR 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MYNOR GUILLERMO ANDRADE-                           No. 08-70994
    ORTEGA; RONALD MARCELO
    ANDRADE-ORTEGA,                                    Agency Nos. A073-396-679
    A073-396-680
    Petitioners,
    v.                                               MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 15, 2011 **
    Before:        CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Mynor Guillermo Andrade-Ortega and Ronald Marcelo Andrade-Ortega,
    natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
    *
    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).
    denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. INS., 
    222 F.3d 1208
    , 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
    reopen because their former counsel received proper notice of the deportation
    hearing held on January 9, 1997. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(4)(iii)(2), Garcia, 
    222 F.3d at 1209
     (notice to an attorney of record constitutes notice to petitioner). To
    the extent petitioners claim exceptional circumstances, petitioners’ motion was
    untimely filed, and petitioners did not demonstrate they warranted equitable
    tolling. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(4)(iii)(1); Iturribarria v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 897
    (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from
    filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
    diligence”).
    Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
    Petitioners’ motion to withdraw as counsel is denied.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     08-70994
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70994

Judges: Canby, Fernandez, Smith

Filed Date: 3/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024