Ramos-Madrid v. Holder ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JUN 02 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JESUS ENRIQUE RAMOS-MADRID;                      No. 08-70368
    MARIA CONCEPCION CHAVEZ-
    RODRIGUEZ,                                       Agency Nos. A075-750-001
    A075-750-002
    Petitioners,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Jesus Enrique Ramos-Madrid and Maria Concepcion Chavez-Rodriguez,
    natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective
    *
    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).
    assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
    for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
    review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
    reopen because the motion was filed more than 11 months after the BIA’s July 25,
    2006, orders dismissing the underlying appeals, 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”).
    We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s July 25, 2006, orders dismissing
    petitioners’ underlying appeals because this petition for review is not timely as to
    those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 
    315 F.3d 1186
    , 1188 (9th
    Cir. 2003).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                     08-70368
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70368

Filed Date: 6/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021