FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL CASTILLO GARCIA; CRUZ No. 09-73153
SANDRA MEDINA TORO,
Agency Nos. A076-724-012
Petitioners, A076-724-013
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Castillo Garcia and Cruz Sandra Medina Toro, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motions to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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), and we deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to
reopen as untimely where they filed their motions more than four years after the
final removal order in their cases, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and petitioners
failed to establish that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable
tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available where
“petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as
the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or
error”); see also Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (due
diligence established where petitioner “demonstrated a steadfast pursuit of his
case”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73153