Resendiz De Roldan v. Holder , 374 F. App'x 688 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MERCED RESENDIZ DE No. 07-74402
ROLDAN; et al.,
Agency Nos. A076-860-402
Petitioners, A076-860-405
A076-860-407
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Merced Resendiz De Roldan, Apolonia Roldan-Resendiz, and Mirella
Roldan-Resendiz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s June 3,
2005, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
petitioners failed to demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897 (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”); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74402