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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011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
FERNANDO VASQUEZ-DE LA MORA No. 09-70978
and MARIA DE LA DEFENSA
FIGUEROA-RODRIGUEZ, Agency Nos. A076-610-952
A076-610-953
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Vasquez-De La Mora and Maria De La Defensa Figueroa-
Rodriguez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
*
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).
judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
a motion to reopen and de novo due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 five years after the BIA’s final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), 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) (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’ due process claim
therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70978