Fredy Hidalgo-Santacruz v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDY ALEJANDRO HIDALGO- No. 09-72084
SANTACRUZ and ELENA MAGO
HIDALGO, Agency Nos. A096-066-964
A096-066-965
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fredy Alejandro Hidalgo-Santacruz and Elena Mago Hidalgo, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se 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 removal proceedings conducted in absentia. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the January 15,
2003, removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i)(A)(1), and petitioners failed
to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003), or fell within the exceptions
to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a);
Flores-Chavez v. Aschcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law
does not require that the Notice of Appear. . . be in any language other than
English.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72084