FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA BALICAT OLIVEROS; et al., No. 09-71512
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A047-872-565
A047-872-566
v. A047-872-567
A047-872-568
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, A047-872-569
A047-872-570
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Maria Balicat Oliveros and her five daughters, natives and citizens of the
Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ September 30,
2008, motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the
BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (generally, a motion
to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and petitioners
did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at
897 (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner
is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the
petitioner acts with due diligence”).
In light of this disposition, petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71512